Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Southern Rhodesia Act 1979
2. Van Diemen's Land Company Act 1979

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Council Houses (Sale)

Mr. Douglas-Mann: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of local authority tenants he estimates will have incomes adequate to enable them to exercise the proposed rights to purchase local authority housing, without imposing financial liabilities on members of the tenant's household, other than the tenant's wife or husband.

The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): It is not possible to give a reliable estimate on the information available.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I refer the Minister to the series of written questions which he and his hon. Friends answered on Friday, which showed that the average income of two-thirds of local authority tenants was below £4,000 a year. The average price of local authority houses and flats is more than £10,500. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, at best, only one-third of local authority tenants could conceivably benefit from the proposal to sell council houses, whatever the discount?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that about 250,000 council tenants have already been able to buy their homes and flats. We are not in the business of chasing numbers, but we wish to give tenants the opportunity to buy their homes. That was our commitment at the election, and that is what we shall do.

Mr. Durant: Does the Minister agree that the shared purchase scheme proposals will help to overcome the problems referred to by Opposition Members?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The scheme will help low-income buyers to gain access to home ownership, which otherwise they would not have.

Mr. Kaufman: Has the Minister sent a reply to the letter that he received from the National Council of Building Material Producers? It wrote to him warning that the diversion of scarce building society funds for council house sales could significantly affect the level of private house building by raising mortgage rates to sky-high levels and creating a famine. Why are the Government clobbering the private home owner?

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman should be aware from the consultation paper that we see no reason why council tenants should not have the same right of access to building society mortgages as everyone else. It is for the building societies to decide whether they will give an applicant a mortgage in the normal way.

Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that where an elderly widow living in a local authority property is unable, because of certain circumstances, to buy that property the right should be given to her next of kin?

Mr. Stanley: We are making provision in proposed legislation whereby a sitting tenant who has other members of the household living with him may undertake a joint purchase. That will be valuable in the circumstances to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Minister accept that by that policy low-income families currently in council accommodation will face the prospect of decent


accommodation receding ever-further from them?

Mr. Stanley: It is evident that those who wish to buy are doing so with a view to staying.

Rating System

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his review of the present rating system will take into account the problems of commercial and industrial ratepayers, particularly those of small shopkeepers.

The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): Yes, Sir, and in addition we hope to bring forward legislation in this Session to extend domestic rate relief to a wider range of mixed business and domestic properties, and to extend the right to pay rates by instalments to non-domestic ratepayers.

Mr. Ross: I thank the Minister for that assurance. As the Government have done away with the revaluation ordered by the previous Labour Government, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, in the review, he will replace the rating system for not only the domestic ratepayer but ratepayers of industrial and commercial premises? Some small shopkeepers are facing problems, and there will be anomalies that will become greater if the revaluation is not to take place.

Mr. King: I understand the concern felt by commercial ratepayers, especially the small shopkeeper, over the substantial increases in rates in recent years. We have made clear our intention to seek the abolition of the domestic rate. I have no further comment at this stage on the wider matters which the hon. Member has raised.

Mr. Hal Miller: Does my right hon. Friend understand that the cancellation of the revaluation of rating for non-domestic premises—such as commercial and industrial premises—has not only attacked the rating base for the income of local authorities but has created a good deal of uncertainty about local authority policies towards those premises?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend will be aware that even if the revaluation had gone ahead it would not have been implemented before 1982. There will be no

immediate change. I understand the concern that is being expressed. We are considering introducing, in legislation shortly to be brought before the House, a partial revaluation power to deal with the uncertainty to which my hon. Friend has referred.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister give an assurance that his consideration of domestic and commercial rating will encompass the need to use some basis other than rateable value for the charging of water rates? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present system is totally inequitable in both the domestic and commercial sectors?

Mr. King: If the rating system is abolished, that will have consequences for the present method of charging for water. That is one of the factors that we shall take into account in our review.

Council Houses (Condensation)

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he is considering any fresh initiatives to combat condensation in new council house dwellings.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): We will consider the need to take further action, in the light of advice from the joint working party on heating and energy conservation in public sector housing, as soon as we have the results of the current Building Research Establishment survey of complaints about condensation.

Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that far more research is needed at national level into this serious problem, and that more money should be made available to individual local authorities to deal with this difficulty? Will he bear in mind, too, that this is a serious problem in Newport and is causing great distress to tenants, especially those in new properties?

Mr. Finsberg: I appreciate that it is a real problem. If the hon. Gentleman will send me specific details concerning Newport, I shall have them examined. I am due to receive a report on the new survey towards the end of the year. In the light of the information that came from the six local authorities involved in the survey, I hope that we can gain a


wider appreciation of the many real problems that are emerging.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is Leicester one of the six local authorities to which the hon. Gentleman has referred? Is he aware of the valiant efforts that the city's housing department is making to combat the blight of condensation? Will he do what he can to assist?

Mr. Finsberg: The answer to the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is "No". Leicester is not one of the six local authorities involved. As I said to the hon. and learned Gentleman on an earlier occasion when environment questions were being dealt with at Question Time, my officials will be pleased to examine the problems to which he referred on the Braunstone estate. We feel that it is wiser to wait until the city council tell us that its remedial works are sufficiently far advanced.

Beckton District Plan

Mr. Spearing: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make an official visit to Beckton in order to view progress made in implementing the Beckton district plan.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): The Beckton district plan has not yet been formally adopted, and I would not therefore wish to comment on its merits at this stage. I have no plans at the moment to visit Beckton.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Secretary of State give serious reconsideration to his refusal to visit part of the Docklands area in my constituency? Is he aware that the fact that he has viewed the area from a helicopter before announcing his plans for an urban development corporation has received bad publicity in the area? Before he makes further pronouncements on the plans, will he visit the area personally in the status of one of Her Majesty's Ministers?

Mr. Heseltine: I believe it right to allow the Beckton plan to be considered and finalised, if that is the wish of the local authority. The hon. Gentleman will know that the urban development corporation has been called for as loudly by his right hon. and hon. Friends as it has by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Spearing: No.

Mr. Heseltine: The corporation will shortly be discussed by the House.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a good reason why he should not visit the area? It is not far from this place. It would not take him long to make a visit. It would do him some good, and it might help to regain some of the good faith which, unfortunately, the electorate had in the Tory Party at the time of the general election.

Mr. Heseltine: I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the question is about the Beckton district plan. It would be inappropriate for the Secretary of State, in his quasi-judicial position, to visit local authorities while they are in the process of considering their local plans.

Mr. Hattersley: Is the Secretary of State aware that throughout Docklands a great deal of proposed industrial development is being held up because of the uncertainty that is being created by his announcement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is directed to Beckton and not to the whole of Docklands.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. May I inform you, Mr. Speaker, that the Beckton district plan is wholly within the London Docklands area?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member, because I did not know.

Mr. Hattersley: Is the Secretary of State aware that within Beckton and other areas in the London Docklands area a great deal of uncertainty is being caused and much development held up because of the fear that when his proposals are put into operation the new corporation will want to start from scratch and draw up a new plan? Will he make it clear that work should go ahead and that there is no reason to assume that the corporation will want to start from the beginning again?

Mr. Heseltine: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an example of one project that is being held up?

Mr. Hattersley: I shall be delighted to send the right hon. Gentleman all the examples given to me by the councils


when I, unlike him, visited the area to see for myself.

Mr. Heseltine: If the councils will give me such examples, we shall be able to have a real debate.

Council House Building

Mr. Norman Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many units of council housing he expects will be started in 1980; how this compares with the average number of starts over the last five years; and if he is satisfied with the progress made.

Mr. Stanley: The average of new house building starts by local authorities in England over the five years 1974 to 1978 was 92,000. The level of house building in 1980, and the progress made, will depend upon the decisions made by each local authority.

Mr. Atkinson: Does the Minister accept that that answer is totally evasive? Does he agree that when the figures are revealed they will represent an absolute disgrace? Is he aware that many thou-stands of families have no bath and no hot water and have to go through somebody else's living room to get to the lavatory? Is he also aware that thousands of families do not enjoy normal marital relations because they have no privacy? Families are living in the most dreadful conditions, yet the Minister will announce a deplorable lack of starts next year. He is willing to be complacent and do nothing about that.

Mr. Stanley: The lack of starts is a reflection of the fact that we inherited the lowest house building programme for 30 years when we took office. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make such criticisms, he should address himself to the performance of the local authority in his constituency. In the last two years of the previous Labour Government Haringey underspent by £4·4 million.

Mr. Michael Morris: Instead of worrying too much about the absolute level of council housing, will my hon. Friend address himself to the problems of London boroughs such as Islington, Haringey, Lambeth and Camden, with their thousands of council properties that remain empty? It seems that no pro

gress is being made to deal with that situation.

Mr. Stanley: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is imperative that local authorities make the best use that they can of their existing housing stocks. I deplore the fact that there are some high levels of vacancies in certain London authorities.

Mr. Dubs: When considering next year's starts, will the Minister distinguish between Conservative and Labour—controlled local authorities? If he does that he will note that the tardiness in new housing starts comes mainly from Conservative-controlled local authorities, such as Wandsworth in my constituency.

Mr. Stanley: The underspend is similar between authorities of different political complexions.

Mr. Major: Would it not be more cost-effective to divert scarce resources into improvement and renovation rather than apply them to the building of council houses?

Mr. Stanley: As my hon. Friend will know, one of the most unfortunate developments during the past five years has been the serious decline in the improvement programme. As a result of the new provisions that we look forward to bringing to the House on improvement and repairs, we hope to be able to reverse that trend.

Mr. Freeson: I revert to the original question. Is it not correct that the figures published in the recent public expenditure White Paper are based on an assumption that there will be about 45,000 to 50,000 housing starts by local authorities? If that is correct, does not the hon. Gentleman consider that disgraceful as an intended policy?

Mr. Stanley: One of the important changes that we shall be making, which will, I hope, help to reduce the appalling levels of underspend that took place when the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the previous Labour Government, will be to alter the present system of housing investment programme allocations so that local authorities have a single block, which will enable them, I hope, to make the best use of the allocations.

Urban Areas (Private Assistance)

Mr. Steen: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to relax planning, fire and building regulations so as to help bring more private investment into redeveloping rundown urban areas.

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to relax planning, fire and building regulations so as to encourage more investment to private enterprise in ailing urban areas.

Mr. Wheeler: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to relax planning, fire and building regulations so as to encourage private investment in city redevelopment.

Mr. Heseltine: As I said in the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Thornton) on Monday 12 November 1979, I am hoping to publish proposals to reduce the scope of planning controls shortly. We are also taking a fundamental look at our system of building control, though we intend to maintain standards of health and safety. Fire regulations are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that the Liverpool city planning department has served compulsory purchase orders on two flourishing firms in the inner city? The premises are soon to be demolished and replaced by public housing at a time when 1,500 acres of public land are vacant within the inner city boundaries. Will the Minister curb the powers of local authorities to serve compulsory purchase orders? Will he tell them that their job is to help small businesses and not to destroy them?

Mr. Heseltine: I have constantly drawn to the attention of local authorities my suggestions that they should help to encourage small businesses. I am pleased to inform the House that the authorities in Liverpool are co-operating with me in examining, on a site by site basis, the 1,000 acres of substantial sites of derelict land within the area of the city.

Mr. Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend agree that rigid zoning policies have often been the enemy of small inno

vative private enterprises in inner city areas? Does he foresee the removal of some of those obstacles under his new proposal?

Mr. Heseltine: This matter requires looking at. We need policies of greater flexibility.

Mr. Wheeler: I thank my right hon. Friend for his encouraging answer, but may I emphasise that in my constituency one small business is prevented from starting up because of the rigidity of the planning norms?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not have details of the small business to which my hon. Friend refers, but he will be aware that it has a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Secretary of State willing to accept that areas such as Merseyside and Liverpool will get investment only through public investment? Does he accept that the urban development corporation that he has announced for Merseyside is seen as a ray of hope if it means that resources will be put through that corporation and that it is not simply window-dressing?

Mr. Heseltine: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the urban development corporation. It supports the view I put forward that my proposals have been called for as loudly from the Opposition Benches as from my own. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is an indication of the Government's commitment to the reclamation of two conspicuously derelict areas.

Mr. Moate: In view of the continuing high level of loss of life through fire, will my right hon. Friend persuade his colleagues to resist any suggestions made by my hon. Friends to relax fire precautions?

Mr. Heseltine: I very much hope that I made it clear in my original answer that we have no intention to prejudice safety.

Mr. Stallard: Does the Secretary of State accept that his last remark will be welcomed by many hon. Members who consider that fire regulations are of the utmost importance? Is he aware of the serious fire risk that exists, particularly in houses of multi-occupation and houses for single people, and in hostels? Will he not


reconsider the Government's attitude to the Private Member's Bill, to be introduced on Friday, of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean), which would help to correct matters?

Mr. Heseltine: I have made clear that this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I must say at once that the general question of fire regulations is not a matter of current debate.

Mr. Heddle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the fire regulations in county Bills, having gone through the House and, therefore, being in draft stage in other respects, are of a higher standard than those incorporated in the national building regulations? Has he any intention to harmonise the two?

Mr. Heseltine: Fire regulations must be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Oakes: Will the Secretary of State heed the wise words of his hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and resist the siren calls from some of his less responsible hon. Friends who are trying to create administrative no-go areas in English cities? Will he discuss with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the inner city area fire at Woolworth's in Manchester which was a holocaust. Is there any credence in the rumours that the Secretary of State intends to transfer responsibility for the administration of building regulations to private insurance companies?

Mr. Heseltine: I know of no one in the House who needs less prompting from me than my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on such issues of pulic interest as safety matters. I have made this clear. I am engaged in wide-ranging consideration of building regulations. The regulations cover a whole range of subjects. We do not intend to make changes that will prejudice public safety.
On the generality of building regulations, I have made clear, and I have publicly announced, that I am looking at the way in which they are administered to see whether we can find a better and more effective method of dealing with them. If I had to give an indication to the House that might support the arguments put forward from the Opposition

Benches, I would acknowledge that there can be varying practices in the administration of building regulations at the discretion of about 400 authorities. This may not be considered to be in the best interests of the standards themselves.

London Dockland

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his detailed proposals for the establishment of an urban development corporation for London dockland.

Mr. Heseltine: The Local Government, Planning and Land Bill which will be introduced shortly will contain enabling proposals. Thereafter, I hope to make the necessary order to set up the development corporation as soon as possible.

Mr. Moate: My right hon. Friend's initiative will be widely welcomed as probably the only way to restore life to the urban and political wastelands close to the heart of our great city? Will his strategy be to ensure that the urban development corporation should be not, a drain on public resources, but a magnet for private enterprise and private capital?

Mr. Heseltine: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to the welcome that my proposals have received on a broad basis. On the second part of his question, these urban development corporations will have to recognise the partnership that is necessary between public and private resources in coping with dramatic opportunities. The prime objective must be to create a climate in which the maximum private commitment can follow public commitment initially.

Mr. Guy Barnett: Is it correct to draw the conclusion from the consultative document that the right hon. Gentleman issued that he proposes to set up urban development corporations without the public inquiry required for new town development corporations? If that is his purpose, it will deprive many individuals of their proper rights.

Mr. Heseltine: The lion. Gentleman will be aware that there is to be a parliamentary process and therefore a wide opportunity for consultation on the procedures that I have in mind.

Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the thousands of acres


that have remained derelict in the Dock-lands area for many years are testimony of the inability of any London borough or of the Greater London Council to deal with the massive re-development that is necessary?

Mr. Heseltine: That is why the demand for the changes that I have announced has come from both sides of the House.

Mr. Leighton: Is the Secretary of State aware of the bad impression that he caused when he met a deputation of Newham councillors recently? I am told that he started by saying that nothing they said would change his mind and his decision. Instead of flying over the area in a helicopter, will he reconsider his view, go down to Newham with the elected representatives, and actually see what they have done?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman criticises me for what I am supposed to have said to the Newham councillors, which I would contest. I should have thought that the whole basis on which the Labour Party operates is that it never opens its mind to anything that it ever hears on any subject.

Council Houses (Stockport)

Mr. McNally: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses have been built in the metropolitan borough of Stockport in each of the last five years; and what is the present waiting list.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The number of council houses completed in the metropolitan borough of Stockport in each of the last five years was:


1974
76


1975
143


1976
243


1977
658


1978
146


There are currently reported to be 4,534 people on the council's waiting list.

Mr. McNally: Is not the Minister aware that those statistics are a disgrace? The Government's housing strategy means that poorer working-class couples in Stockport face the prospect of the best housing stock being sold off, the worst being left in disrepair, and the Government's policy on interest rates putting

private housing beyond their reach? The whole Government housing strategy, as those statistics show, is a cruel fraud on working class couples.

Mr. Finsberg: If the hon. Gentleman bothered to study the facts, he would realise that waiting lists are a most unreliable measure of housing need. He also ought to realise that, according to the information reaching my Department, the reductions in this year's programme caused no problems at all. I believe that Stockport is well capable of looking after its own affairs.

Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is precisely that political Dutch auction attitude that lies behind the question of the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) that has condemned a number of people to the council house waiting list for an interminable length of time? Surely the Government should be concentrating on need rather than on numbers.

Mr. Finsberg: I could not be in greater agreement with everything that my hon. Friend has said.

Peak District National Park

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to enable the board of the Peak District national park to be democratically elected.

Mr. King: We have no plans for legislation on this matter. Two-thirds of the members are appointed by the democratically elected county councils concerned.

Mr. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents who live in the Peak District national park think that the board is insensitive to their interests and tends to put the interests of visitors above theirs? Does he agree that there is a great deal of merit in allowing the people who live in the park directly to elect the board which would then be responsible to them?

Mr. King: We have no proposals to change the position. There is a particular difficulty with regard to the Peak park, in that six county and nine district councils are involved. However, I take very much to heart my hon. Friend's comment about the need to ensure that the interests of the people who live in the park are properly


considered. We shall reinforce that point in representations to the planning board.

Mr. Parris: I accept what my right hon. Friend said about the difficulty of direct elections. Does he accept that there is a problem between the Peak park planning board and those who live and work in the park over the planning control authority? The board does a great deal of valuable work, but there is a problem in this respect. Will my right hon. Friend consider three measures that might help? First—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must be fair to the hon. Gentleman, and he must be fair to the House. I hope that he will not make his three points now. Perhaps he will contact his right hon. Friend later.

Mr. Parris: Will my right hon. Friend consider improving the appeals procedure in order to make it less cumbersome, increasing the representation of the district councils on the board and putting Ministry of Agriculture nominees on the board?

Mr. King: I do not think that it would be appropriate to have one appeals system for national parks and another for other parts of the country. We are anxious to improve the whole working of the appeals system so that the Peak park area can benefit as well. I believe that at present there are two farmers on the Peak park planning board. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food makes representations to us about appointments. I am afraid that I have forgotten my hon. Friend's third point.

Mr. Parris: The question of nominees.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the protection of the national heritage that is contained in our national parks requires a strengthening of national membership on national park committees, rather than a weakening of it? In that respect, can he tell us what arrangements have been made for the proper discussion in the House of proposals arising from topic paper No. 4 on the conservation of the country heritage?

Mr. King: This is a question of balance between the national interest and the proper preservation of the interests of those who live in national park areas. At

the present time in the Peak park, 22 members are appointed by the count councils and only four come from the district councils. I think thtat a fair point can be made in that regard. We are open to representations on the documents that have been issued by the countryside review committee, and we shall consider any points that the right hon. Gentleman has to make.

Local Authorities (Expenditure)

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he satisfied with the economies made by local government service since 3 May.

Mr. Heseltine: I am assured by the local authority associations that the vast majority of authorities are co-operating with my request for reductions in expenditure in 1979–80. I welcome this assurance.

Mr. Rooker: Is the Secretary of State aware that local authority directors of social services have said that it is mere wishful thinking to believe that any more savings can be made from good housekeeping. Does not that sum up the Government's policy?

Mr. Heseltine: I am aware that whenever one undergoes rounds of public expenditure constraints everyone involved overstates his case.

Mr. Bevan: In the interests of encouraging local authorities to effect further economies, will my right hon. Friend consider what advice he will give to local authorities to preclude the setting up of more quangos, one of which is being proposed by the West Midland county council?

Mr. Heseltine: I have made it clear that I think that one of the most effective ways of achieving the economies that I require is to keep a tight control over the number of people recruited to local government.

Mr. Marks: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the groups hardest hit by the Government's economies is that of young families with one wage-earner receiving a wage just above supplementary benefit level? That group will he hit hard by these economies, including the loss of free school meals, yet it has received no benefit from the


cuts in income tax, and so on. Is not that group of young families among the hardest hit by the Government's policies?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to see what happens when the decisions are implemented, not when they are widely canvassed as options in advance. He should remember that we are looking for 1½ per cent. less spending this year than last year, and a further 1 per cent. less next year. That is hardly what one could call a ravaging of the Welfare State.

Mr. Marlow: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the campaign that is being indulged in by Lambeth council and others against the Government's cuts, and that taxpayers' and ratepayers' money is being used to produce newspapers in order to call people on to the streets to demonstrate against the policies of a recently elected Government? Would he care to comment on that?

Mr. Heseltine: I am aware of the campaign, headed by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), which has given rise to certain claims by a handful of authorities. So far as I understand it, they work on the assumption that the local authorities of all other hon. Members should suffer so that they, this handful, should have more.

Mr. Alton: Bearing in mind the Secretary of State's assertions that vast amounts of money will be saved by abolishing quangos, will he tell the House how much it will cost to set up the urban development corporations in London Docklands and the Liverpool dockland? Does he agree that it is irresponsible of local authorities to embark upon grandiose schemes when, at the same time, basic services are being cut? What action does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take against his own local authority, which is spending £5 million on new council offices at Crowmarsh in Oxfordshire?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is asking me to involve myself in every decision of every local authority. I have no more intention of doing that with my own local authority than I have with the hon. Gentleman's.

Mr. Hattersley: On previous Wednesdays the right hon. Gentleman has said that he intends to involve himself in individual decisions of individual local authorities to prevent those that are spending too much from doing so. Where do we stand? Are we to have his promise fulfilled, or is he running away?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I am interested in constraining the overall levels of expenditure, not in telling local government how it should achieve those levels.

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is proposing a new system under which precise guidelines will be given to each local authority as to the acceptable expenditure for each of its various activities.

Mr. Heseltine: No.

Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to deny categorically the contents of the report in the Financial Times on Monday 29 October, which suggested that he would introduce a unitary system of grants to local authorities, lay down how much they could spend on each of their services and set out how much they should raise by way of rates to finance them?

Mr. Heseltine: On Friday I shall be holding the statutory annual consultations with local government on all sorts of matters that are relevant to this year's and next year's financial provision and the structure of rate support grant. If the House will bear with me, I think that it is right not to anticipate that statement.

Mr. Michael Morris: Although my right hon. Friend is quite rightly resisting the temptation to lay down precise guidelines, will he, nevertheless, encourage the local authority assocations to produce comparative figures of cost per unit, for whatever service is provided, so that the public can judge which authorities give value for money and which do not?

Mr. Heseltine: I have announced my intention to take powers in the Local Government Bill that is shortly to be introduced to achieve precisely that purpose.

Mr. Foster: Will the Secretary of State explain to the House how he can produce such comparisons of input without showing the comparisons of output?

Mr. Heseltine: I believe that it will be possible to deal with a whole range of statistics on both sides of the equation. I shall have wide-ranging consultations, in which I am sure that all hon. Members will want to take part, on precisely which statistics are to be called for. One thing that I shall certainly call for is the publication of manpower figures for each authority so that everybody locally can understand whether his authority is taking on more people or constraining its manpower ceilings.

Houses (Internal Toilet Facilities)

Mr. Penhaligon: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of how long, at the current rate of demolition and improvement, it will be before homes without inside toilets and bathrooms in Great Britain are eliminated.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Between 1971 and 1976, the last date for which information is available, the number of dwellings in England lacking either a bathroom or an inside toilet fell from 2·1 million to 1·2 million. At the same rate of progress we would eliminate such deficiencies in our housing stock within the next 10 years, but this is dependent upon the decisions of many thousands of individual householders.

Mr. Penhaligon: Will the Minister admit that Government policy has some effect on this issue? Will he let the House know whether he believes that recent policy changes have increased or reduced that time scale?

Mr. Finsberg: It is difficult to estimate. All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that what we are trying to do is to increase the attack on substandard housing. Our consultation paper of 31 October outlined our proposals for changes in the grant system, which will enable us to direct resources to priority needs.

Mr. W. Benyon: Is it not a fact that there is now a substantial surplus of accommodation, although there are local shortages? It is therefore essential to concentrate on this aspect rather than on the figures game of building council houses.

Mr. Finsberg: I am sure that my hon. Friend is correct. The overall picture is what is important. We should not allow ourselves to be diverted by selective statistical quotes.

Mr. Skinner: Is it not time that the Minister and the rest of his colleagues stopped coming to the House of Commons to try to kid people about the attempt that they are making to improve and modernise homes? Is he aware that Bolsover district council has suffered a reduction of about £1 million as a result of the Tory Government's recent efforts to help? The result is that hundreds of my constituents who thought that their homes would be modernised when the Labour Government were in power now have to wait several years more.

Mr. Finsberg: I should be glad to investigate that allegation.

Water Rating System

Mr. David Atkinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for reforming the water rating system.

Mr. King: I appreciate that there is a good deal of concern about how water charges are raised and about their impact on particular groups of consumers. I am considering with the National Water Council a number of aspects of the way in which the system works, but I am not yet in a position to announce any conclusion.

Mr. Atkinson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the water rating system is even more unfair to householders than the domestic rating system, as water authorities do not benefit from the rate support grant? Will he consider the universal installation of water meters, which, at £10 per household, would result in a substantial reduction in water charges for the vast majority of house owners?

Mr. King: One must accept that there are unfairnesses in the way in which water charges are raised. At the same time, it is a relatively economic way of obtaining water funds. However, I should like details from my hon. Friend of his £10 meter, because the figures that I have are considerably in excess of that. Although there would obviously be attractions in moving to that system, the latest estimate


that I have is that it would cost more than £1,000 million to move to universal water metering, and that charge would have to be recovered from consumers. This is a difficult issue, but we are studying it intensely.

Mr. Rooker: Does the Minister accept that the policy advocated by his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) would, if it were carried out, be the most retrograde step in public health policy in the last 100 years?

Mr. King: That is a concept which I should like further time to consider. If it is really suggested that there could be circumstances in which the demand for water took some account of the cost of its production that might have some impact on the overall demand and on what would otherwise be a continuing demand for reservoirs, with the resultant loss of good productive land.

Mr. Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend consider that a greater degree of accountability by water authorities to himself or to some elected body might help in assessing what were the best rates, the best system of charging those rates and other actions by water authorities?

Mr. King: I have no proposals to change the present system, under which the majority of boards and water authorities are elected members of local authorities. I should not propose a change which would mean more national control.

Mr. Denis Howell: Does the Minister's answer mean that he is changing the view and policy announced by the Under-Secretary of State earlier in the Session? Is he aware that the Opposition will reject any proposals to tax—which is what it would mean—the poorest and largest families in the country through the installation of water meters? It would be a most retrograde step. In addition to the cost of metering there would need to be a meter reader service, which would be a further financial imposition upon householders. Will the Minister therefore drop this crazy idea?

Mr. King: Obviously, the right hon. Gentleman's thoughts have not advanced beyond the penny-farthing stage in the context of the technology of what might be possible in water meter reading. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider that the sums that have been

discussed in this context are not on a scale that would represent a massive imposition on the poor.

Gipsies

Mr. Iain Mills: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider changing his Department's policy on not moving on gipsies from Crown property.

Mr. King: Successive Governments have tolerated gipsies on Government land unless eviction has been essential. We are now reviewing this policy to clarify the extent to which it is still appropriate and whether it represents the best interests of the gipsies and of local communities.

Mr. Mills: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the problems caused to my constituents at Watton farm by gipsy encampments? But for the help of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, they would still be there. As they have been moved twice, does my right hon. Friend agree that for unsuitable sites such as this one the policy might be changed more rapidly than his review would imply?

Mr. King: I am aware of the problems to which my hon. Friend refers. This is a difficult issue and will continue to be so until such time as adequate designated official sites are available for gipsies. Clearly, one seeks to operate a humane policy in these matters. Successive Governments have sought not to enforce movement unless it was considered essential.

Mr. Dan Jones: Is the Minister aware that these so-called gipsies are nothing of the sort; that they are people who escape their proper obligations and, in the process, are a damned nuisance to nearby residents?

Mr. King: I think that, on reflection the hon. Member will accept that what he has said is not entirely true. There are genuine Romany families, for whom provision must be made. I accept that there is also a grey area of, perhaps, the Irish tinker community and others who might fit more fully into the hon. Gentleman's category. I should not wish to see all gipsies labelled with such accusations.

Mr. Hawkins: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that Romany families should be welcomed, but I endorse the view of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) who talked about the nuisance which these gipsy families cause to genuine families in my constituency by the way in which they batten on to the community, pay no taxes, pay no rates and, in fact—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked no question.

Mr. King: In addition to being a considerable nuisance and disadvantage to many of my hon. Friend's constituents, they do great damage to genuine Romany families who, in many areas, are often very much better behaved and much less anti-social in their behaviour. I recognise the genuine problem of this aspect of the itinerant community.

Mr. Newens: Does not the number of gipsy families greatly exceed the number that can be accommodated on authorised sites? I remind the House that these people are human beings. Many of them have no option but to put themselves where they are a nuisance to other people. Is not the answer for the Government to take action to see that those local authorities which are not providing sites do so? Is not this also in the interests of local authorities, such as my own, Harlow, which are providing sites?

Mr. King: The hon. Member will recognise that part of his comment was very much in line with my remark to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills). A statutory duty is laid upon local authorities, and it will be maintained.

Local Authorities (Expenditure)

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has received to the White Paper on relaxing controls over local government.

Mr. Heseltine: I have received comments from the local authority associations, individual local authorities, the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and a number of other interested bodies and members of the public.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he allay some of the anxiety of metropolitan county councils that the proposals might remove the freedom of local government to finance capital expenditure by good housekeeping if they are able to do so? We should leave the responsibility for local government expenditure with local authorities if they are able to exercise it by good housekeeping and by the best means possible.

Mr. Heseltine: We have announced proposals to introduce ceilings on local government capital expenditure, but within those ceilings we have also announced changes that will give local government much greater flexibility as to how it uses its capital resources.

Mr. Frank Allaun: If controls on local authorities are to be relaxed, will that apply to the sale of council houses?

Mr. Heseltine: We have made it clear that we put our proposals to the electorate at the last election, and we have an overwhelming mandate to carry them into law.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a potential difficulty for councils facing a situation in which they must embark on large capital expenditure in order to meet an employment crisis, such as that in northeast Wales, but find that the new proposals seriously limit their freedom of manoeuvre?

Mr. Heseltine: That would depend entirely upon the ceilings that we set and the method by which we distribute the overall resources, together with other Government programmes.

Mr. Straw: What will the Secretary of State say to Conservative-controlled councils, such as North Norfolk and Guildford, which object as much as Labour-controlled authorities do to the dictatorial central controls by which the Government are to take over the sale of council houses regardless of how that will damage the ability of those councils to meet their local housing need?

Mr. Heseltine: I contest the assumption that this will damage the ability of authorities to meet their council house needs. I say to them what I have said to everyone else: the council house


tenant is being offered one of the most generous opportunities that have ever been put before tenants. Nothing that the Opposition are able to do will stop us from carrying that to the statute book.

New International Airport

Mr. Haselhurst: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department has carried out a survey of the environmental impact of a two-runway international airport at any of the six sites short listed by the Advisory Committee on Airports Policy.

Mr. King: I understand that environmental implications are being taken into account by the study group on South-East airports, whose report, together with the views of the Advisory Committee on Airports Policy, is expected to be submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade shortly.

Mr. Haselhurst: Has my right hon. Friend discovered any means of costing the environmental loss which the foundation of a new international airport would undoubtedly cause at any one of the six sites short listed, so that this can be compared with the other factors which are no doubt to be costed in the advisory committee's report?

Mr. King: I am unable to comment on what detailed work has been done on this matter, as we have not yet received the study group's report. However, this and other considerations will obviously become of great interest when the report is received and when any further action that may flow from it is considered.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister abandon the idea of a third London airport, for environmental and other considerations, and accept that it would be much more sensible and much cheaper for a Government committed to public expenditure cuts to look at a regional alternative? Will the Minister consider Liverpool and Manchester in terms of taking the trade and business that would come to a third London airport, because Manchester can take 6 million passengers per year, and is taking only 2 million now?

Mr. King: While we obviously have a close interest in the environmental implications concerned, that question should

more properly be directed to the Secretary of State for Trade.

Improvement Grants

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many improvement grants were paid in 1978–79; how many are likely to be paid in 1979–80; and if he will make a statement on current levels of grants.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: It is estimated that about 59,000 grants were paid in 1978–79 for the conversion, improvement and repair of private dwellings in England. I am unable to offer an estimate of the number which will be paid in the current financial year, but in the first six months of 1979–80 an estimated 32,300 grants were paid. This compares with 28,500 in the same period in 1978–79. We are keeping the eligible expense limits for grants under review.

Mr. Alton: In view of the disappointing number of applications for grants, is the Minister prepared to review the upper limits in housing action and general improvement areas, as well as considering environmental grants for upgrading the areas around people's homes in housing action areas?

Mr. Finsberg: We are keeping all these matters under review. Less than a quarter of all improvement grant applications approved relate to total eligible expenditure at or near the maximum.

Mr. Hill: If my hon. Friend wishes to make a further onslaught on increasing the number of improvement grants, will he consider going back to the original scheme, under which small builders were able to get improvement grants and then sell the houses on the open market?

Mr. Finsberg: I shall certainly have another look at that idea.

General Development Order

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to submit to Parliament proposals to amend the general development order.

Mr. King: I am considering what extensions can be made to permitted development to reduce the number of planning applications that have to be considered. I hope to issue a consultation paper shortly.

Mr. Chapman: I appreciate that the arguments are finely balanced on whether more minor development proposals ought to be taken out of the development control procedures. However, if my right hon. Friend decides against excluding more minor proposals, will he bring forward speedier and simpler procedures for dealing with such minor development proposals?

Mr. King: I appreciate the sense behind my hon. Friend's suggestion. However, these are matters which we shall have to consider in the light of the response to our consultation paper.

Mr. Guy Barnett: As the Government, on several occasions, have expressed the view—rightly, I believe—that non-conforming development in residential areas can be a good thing, will they look very carefully at the general development order and recognise the effect that small industrial extensions can have on neighbours?

Mr. King: That is one of the points that we shall keep very much in mind.

Local Authorities (Cost-effectiveness)

Mr. Bob Dunn: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to encourage local authorities to compare their cost-efficiency in the provision of services with that of other local authorities.

Mr. Heseltine: I shall be seeking powers this Session to require local authorities to publish more information about the cost of their services in a form which will enable comparisons of performance to be made. My proposals are outlined in a consultation paper published on 24 October, a copy of which is in the Library.

Mr. Dunn: Will the Secretary of State please make a statement at the earliest opportunity about the action that he intends to take against those local authorities which are giving or will be giving poor service to ratepayers? Will he make his views known to the councils' associations? Will he take action against London authorities, such as Lambeth, which intend to persist in working against the Government's policy?

Mr. Heseltine: It is my responsibility to set ceilings and overall targets. It is a matter for the local democratic processes to discuss the quality of services provided by individual authorities.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister comment on how he views the presence of Lord Bellwin in his Department to assess the efficiency of local authorities? Will Lord Bellwin try to impose the values that he obtained at Staflex International—that is, complete closure, bankruptcy and thousands on the dole? Is that the aim?

Mr. Heseltine: I think that the hon. Member will recognise that Lord Bellwin has substantial experience in running a major authority. The Department aims to take advantage of the benefit of that experience. If the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was once a member had ever listened to experts, they might have governed rather more effectively.

Mr. John Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that many senior local government officers are becoming increasingly alarmed at the dictatorial determination of the Government to reduce them to mere agents of central Government?

Mr. Heseltine: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should criticise this Government, when he spent six years in a Government who were trying to achieve precisely that. It is the elected representatives in local government who must have the last say about local priorities, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have appreciated that.

Housing Bill

Mr. Bevan: asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the Housing Bill.

Mr. Heseltine: I expect to introduce the Bill before the House rises for the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Bevan: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that in the Bill there will be a further development of home improvements so as to increase substantially the housing stock in the private sector?

Mr. Heseltine: A number of proposals will be included in the legislation for that purpose.

IMMIGRATION RULES

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about immigration.
I am today publishing a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals for revising the immigration rules. The Immigration Act 1971 requires the Home Secretary to lay before Parliament a statement of any changes in the immigration rules, and the statement may be disapproved by a resolution of either House. My purpose in publishing our proposals as a White Paper is to enable them to be debated before I lay that statement of the new rules.
The White Paper is the result of a comprehensive review. The new rules will be clearer, easier to operate and firmer in a number of critical areas.
We shall end the automatic right of entry of the husband or fiancé of a woman settled in this country, but it is not my intention to keep out the husband or fiancé of a woman who was born in the United Kingdom and whose marriage is not contracted for immigration purposes. The object of the new rules is to prevent the exploitation of marriage as an instrument of primary immigration. We cannot permit that to continue.
I have not overlooked the fact that some girls will have been born abroad because their parents happened to be out of the country—for example, in Crown service or business—at the time of their birth. It is my intention to consider such cases sympathetically for favourable treatment outside the rules.
We undertook to end the practice of allowing permanent settlement for those who come here for a temporary stay. The new rules provide that visitors and students will not be able to remain for another temporary purpose if that carries with it the prospect of eventual settlement. Visitors will be prohibited from taking employment. People who wish to set up in business or stay here as self-employed persons or as persons of independent means will have to meet stricter requirements and will need first to obtain entry clearance.
We undertook to limit the entry of parents, grandparents and children over

18 to a small number of urgent compassionate cases. Children aged 18 or over will qualify for settlement only where the circumstances are of the most strongly compassionate nature, although special consideration will be given to daughters under 21 who formed part of the family unit overseas and have no other relative to whom they can turn. Parents and grandparents aged 65 or over and widowed mothers already have to show that they are wholly or mainly dependent on children in this country who can support and accommodate them. In future they will also have to show that they are without other relatives in their own country to whom they can turn and that they have a standard of living substantially below that of their own country. Parents and grandparents under 65 will not qualify for entry save in the most exceptional circumstances.
We also said that we would severely restrict the issue of work permits. That is not a matter for the immigration rules, but my hon, and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment is answering a written question on the subject today.
The White Paper explains that the Government will consider, on the basis of the present rules, all applications made before today.
The other changes in the White Paper are the result of the comprehensive review that I have mentioned. Obscurities have been cleared up, anomalies have been removed, and the scope for abuse and evasion of the control has been reduced.
The Government believe that firm immigration control is essential in order to achieve good community relations. The new rules will not affect our commitment to certain United Kingdom passport holders being admitted under the special voucher scheme, or to men lawfully settled here who wish to be joined by their wives and young children. We shall continue to welcome the genuine visitor and the genuine student. What we are determined to do is to deal strictly with those who seek to evade or manipulate the control.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the whole racialist document—the White Paper—is clearly the work of the Prime Minister, surely


the right hon. Lady should have made the statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: In the White Paper the Government set out a comprehensive system of new immigration rules. Those rules cover all aspects of controlling immigration from all parts of the world. The Home Secretary said that as a result of the review obscurities have been cleared up, anomalies removed, and so forth.
We note that the Government will provide time to debate the proposals before the new rules are laid, but comprehensive new immigration rules need comprehensive consideration. I hope that the Government will consider it necessary to have longer than one and a half hours to debate the order. There are a great many issues involved, and in the to-ing and fro-ing today we shall deal only with the main ones.
A little over a year ago, in preparation for an election, the present Prime Minister talked of the country being swamped. That was not true. The statistics that the Home Office published clearly show that the country is not being swamped. Primary immigration is over, and has been for some time.
There were three proposals discussed at the time of the election, and Tory right hon, and hon. Members went to the country on those proposals. There was talk of a register. I congratulate the Home Secretary on dropping that proposal. It was nonsense before the election, and it is nonsense now. I also congratulate the Home Secretary on dropping the quota. The figures show that that, too, is unnecessary. There was also talk of a restriction on all husbands and fiancés, and that proposal has been limited and now effectively concerns only Asians.
The proposal on husbands and fiancés is designed specifically to deal with Asians. Many hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins), will be supporting a proposal that will act against a large number of their constituents.
When I was a junior Minister in 1969 I put something through the House which was not very different from what the Home Secretary is doing now. But I

was wrong. It was altered in 1974 when my predecessor, Mr. Roy Jenkins—said—[Interruption]—It is no good hon. Members laughing. This is very important for those hon. Members with Asian constituents. Mr. Jenkins said:
When I first considered this I believe that I put too high the likely immigration consequences and did not fully allow for the stark and unacceptable nature of the discrimination. On further consideration of all the issues involved in this difficult problem, I am persuaded that there are no sufficiently compelling reasons for denying the parties to a marriage the freedom of choice that I believe they should have."—[Official Report, 27 June 1974; Vol. 785, c. 875.]
There are aspects of this document that must be looked at in detail. One realises the importance of this matter when one considers that an entry clearance officer on the Indian Sub-continent will not be able to give a clearance where the parties to the marriage have not yet met. That simply means that if there are swift visits to the sub-continent everything will be all right.

Mr. Ronald Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there any limit to the privilege accorded to Front Bench questions?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are not debating this matter today. We are dealing with questions after a statement.

Mr. Rees: This is a most important matter. Perhaps the Home Secretary could explain why the Government have left out two and a half of the three proposals that they originally put before the electorate and why the bits that they have kept are racist and reactionary?

Mr. Hill: This is ridiculous.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) would do well to consider these matters—

Mr. Hill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) is taking advantage of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman was about to ask a question.

Mr. Rees: Yes, I am about to ask another question on top of the batch that I have already asked. The Home Office has facts and figures about overstaying. The inquiry into overstaying and abuse


has not yet been completed, but when it is I hope that the facts will be put before the House.—[Hoyt. MEMBERS: "Ask a Question."]—I am asking a question. I want to know whether the facts will be put before the House. Obviously some hon. Members do not consider this matter important. There is some obscurity on the question when the rules, which have not yet been laid, will come into effect. Can they really take effect when the White Paper and the rules have not yet been debated? Is it a fact that hon. Members must go to their Asian constituents and tell them that the change has already been made? I agree that the immigration rules should be looked at—

Mr. Neubert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the convention of the House that any Front Bench statements made in reply to a Minister's statement should be shorter than the original statement, or at least as long, but not longer by a ratio of two to one? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that when there is a great deal of emotion in the House hon. Members would be well advised to leave it to me to do what I can to ensure that our affairs are conducted propertly. Certainly we have a set procedure for asking a series of questions of a Minister.

Mr. Rees: As I was saying, the immigration rules need to be looked at from time to time. Does the Home Secretary agree that primary immigration is over, and that what he is doing today is pandering to those who think otherwise? In doing this he will do great harm to community relations with proposals that are sexist, racist and indefensible.

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall seek to answer the questions of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees). I agree that a comprehensive review of the immigration rules is very important and needs to be undertaken from time to time. I believe that it is right that it should be undertaken now.
I agree that it is important that there should be a debate and an opportunity for reflection. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has agreed that there should be a full day's debate on the White

Paper. In publishing the White Paper at 11 am we gave hon. Members the opportunity of seeing it in good time before this afternoon's statement. In doing that, and in agreeing to a debate, we have behaved in a thoroughly proper manner.
I wish to make it clear that this is a statement about the immigration rules as such. Matters such as the register and quotas would require legislation. This is different from the rules. We have certainly not dropped those proposals at this stage.
The right hon. Member said that he was wrong in 1969. His right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and he acted then when the figures were very much smaller than they are today, but a little death-bed repentance is not much good. He quoted what Mr. Roy Jenkins said in 1974. I wonder whether he overlooked what Mr. Jenkins' Minister of State said at the same time, namely, that
some 200 or 300 husbands or fiancés are admitted because of these kinds of considerations from the Commonwealth each year. … The danger is that if this matter were to be mishandled by the present Government or by their successors we could experience a substantial new wave of immigration."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 March 1974; Vol. 350, c. 794–5.]
Just a few hundred were affected then, and now the figure is several thousand.
The right hon. Member asked me about the retrospective position. Those who are in the queue today will be processed. That is important. I have answered all his questions clearly, except on the aspect of overstaying. The overstaying report was quite properly commissioned by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South and we shall certainly be prepared to see that the House discusses it. I am bound to say that what has been revealed so far is not satisfactory. I do not believe that the arrangements that we have today for checking on overstaying are in any way satisfactory. Indeed, this is a most unsatisfactory position. The House and the country should recognise it, and we should seek steps to put it right.

Mr. David Steel: Does not the statement that the Home Secretary has just made run completely counter to his own oft-repeated statement that people once settled in this country should be treated equally before the law? Is it not true that the family life—of which the Prime


Minister has often spoken—of certain people in this country is already disrupted by the present immigration rules, and that still more will be disrupted by these rules? Has the right hon. Gentleman considered what is happening to the nature of our society, that it pretends that it requires a set of squalid and mean-spirited proposals like these to check abuses by a few hundred people?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept for one moment that these are mean-minded proposals. I believe that we in this country are absolutely entitled to say that we are not prepared to allow marriage to be exploited for the purpose of gaining primary immigration into this country. That is what is happening, and it is not right.

Mr. Edward Gardner: I recognise and welcome the new rules proposed in the White Paper as necessary, comprehensive and realistic, but does my right hon. Friend agree that ultimately the only way to deal with immigration problems on a permanent basis is to scrap the obsolete and absurd nationality laws and replace them with a new nationality Act?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon, and learned Friend, who has made a considerable study of that proposal. We have committed ourselves to introducing a nationality Act. The many other subjects of legislation coming before the House may mean that the Act will not get on to the statute book this Session, but I am considering publishing a White Paper setting out the Government's clear proposals on the matter.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What estimate has the right hon. Gentleman made of the reduction that these changes will bring about in the number of persons from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan accepted for settlement, and in the projection of that population at the end of the century?

Mr. Whitelaw: I expect the effect of these rules in particular on the present numbers to be a reduction of between 3,000 and 4,000 a year.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Why, in all that he has said so far, has the Home Secretary avoided mention of the worst feature of this squalid document, namely,

that he has introduced a new rule that will prevent a marriage where the parties have not met? That is not intended to hit a marriage of convenience, which is met by other rules; it is intended to hit the genuine arranged marriage of Asian girls, whether or not they were born in this country. In doing that, the right hon. Gentleman introduces a racialist difference between one British citizen and another. Has he not mentioned it because he is ashamed of it?

Mr. Whitelaw: Has not the hon. Gentleman, with his considerable experience of these matters, come to the view held by many hon. Members? I remember the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) telling me that in the future it will increasingly be the practice that Asian girls in this country will wish to marry Asian boys in this country. I should have thought that that was a position that we should encourage. I cannot understand why that should not proceed, nor can I see anything wrong in the way in which our country has worked over generations—that people who wish to get married should actually have met before they decide to do so.

Sir Paul Bryan: In spite of the Opposition's protests, am I not right in saying that my right hon. Friend's statement is in accord with the Conservative Party manifesto, which was endorsed by the electorate only six months ago?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is substantially correct.

Mr. Deakins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his disgraceful statement will be treated with dismay not merely in areas of high immigrant population but in all areas concerned with good community relations? Will he be a little more explicit about the position of fiancés in South Asia in the queue already awaiting entry clearance and an interview?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I do not believe that the vast majority of the Asian community in this country will think it unreasonable that we should make sensible arrangements, which these are.
The hon. Gentleman very properly asked about those in the queue. They will be processed, and therefore their position is safeguarded.

Mr. Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Opposition and all those who talk of racism and sexism in the proposed immigration rules that this country is governed in the interests of its inhabitants and not those of immigrants?

Mr. Whitelaw: I believe that this country is governed in the interests of all its citizens, and it is on that basis that I have put forward these proposals.

Miss Joan Lestor: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has now created several different categories of people who stand in different relationships to the law of this land? Will he bear in mind that the attempt to buy off those women born abroad of British parents who happen to be white—in that he will exercise his discretion as to whom we may or may not marry—will in no way mitigate our opposition to what he is doing to our Asian sisters?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that what the hon. Lady said is entirely correct. If a woman is born in this country, whether she is Asian or whatever, she will be allowed to bring in her husband or fiancé.

Miss Lestor: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to look him over before I bring him in?

Mr. Whitelaw: What I meant when I referred to a discretion was that I would treat sympathetically, outside the rules, those who may have been born of British parents who were on Crown service or business abroad. The others have the right.

Mr. George Gardiner: Will my right hon. Friend state whether it is correct that the Conservative manifesto proposals for a register and a quota have been dropped, or whether it is simply a matter of deferring such action until later in this Parliament?

Mr. Whitelaw: I made it clear that these matters would require substantive legislation. There may be no place for such substantive legislation this Session. What I have done is to make what I believe are sensible changes in the immigration rules, and those are what I have put before the House today.

Mr. Sever: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many thousands of families in the ethnic minority groups will be desperately disappointed by the sordid and squalid measure that is proposed today? How does he square what he has proposed in the White Paper with the statement of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 4 May about creating one united nation?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's statement. I believe that what we have done is to make a sensible, plain change in the rules—a change that I believe, in the long run will be in the interests of everyone in this country. May I refer once again to all the comments that it is racially discriminatory? I should have thought that it was perfectly clear that any woman born in this country, of whatever nationality, colour, race or creed, would be entitled to bring in her husband or fiancé.

Mr. Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while the new rules will be welcomed there will be widespread disappointment throughout the country that the actual effect of the rules will be to reduce the huge numbers coming in every year by only 3,000?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend says. At the last election all parties accepted the commitment that the wives and children of heads of households who were here on 1 January 1973 should be allowed to come into the country to unite their families. We all accepted that United Kingdom passport holders would be entitled to come into the country in diminishing numbers and that there would be no question of anyone who is legally in the country being sent away for any purpose. Those important matters were set out at the time of the election by all parties. We should remember that that is the background against which the changes have been made.

Mr. Bidwell: Sad as they are, not only will these proposals affect Asian communities in Britain; there will also be an effect on British public opinion. As the debate proceeds, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the aspects of the White Paper that contain matters of gross sex discrimination? Western Europe is moving against such thought. The movement of free labour means that white


people are under few restrictions. Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider carefully the human problems that will arise from the exclusion of an old lady in the Indian Sub-continent who cannot join most of her children in this country, albeit that she may have some land over there? I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a humane Tory.

Hon. Members: The right hon. Gentleman was humane.

Mr. Bidwell: I ask the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to pay attention to what was said by the all-Party Select Committee. Why has there been no agreement on the question of husband and male fiancés, and why are we to disturb the pattern of old people's entitlement to come here?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall always respond to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell). In his constituency he has a particular problem, with which the House is well acquainted. Over a period of time he has handled that problem with a great deal of skill in difficult circumstances. I certainly respond to him. We shall listen carefully to the points that he makes. I believe that what we are doing will not be received with the hysteria that I have heard from the Opposition Benches. We have tightened the rules on dependants, but many of those rules operated under the previous Government. I do not complain of those rules. However, we have sought to tighten them and I would have thought that to be reasonable. No doubt during the debate we shall come to the other matters that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is another statement to follow. The present statement will be subject to a full debate. I hope that those hon. Members whom I call will ask brief questions, in order that other hon. Members may have the opportunity to speak.

Mr. Scott: I have a specific and brief question. How will the rules affect an infant female child who is born overseas but adopted by an indigenous family in this country? When that child reaches marriageable age will she be treated in the same way as her natural brothers and sisters, or differently?

Mr. Whitelaw: I know that such a case offers many complications. Adop

tion has sometimes been used as a means of evading the rules and it is important to remember that. However, I shall consider carefully what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is the Minister aware that in Leicester, where there are thousands of Asians, his statement will be greeted by them not with hysteria but with grave anxiety and upset? Is he further aware that they will feel that the Government are not the right people to choose whom a girl should marry, and that it is a matter for the girl alone? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the applications that are now in the pipeline, whether for fiancés or for children over 18, will continue to be treated under the present rules?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon, and learned Gentleman says. Many Asian girls in this country would wish to make their own choice. Indeed, that may well happen after the change in the rules rather than at present.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend discuss with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services how another ground of abuse can be avoided by making sponsors of dependent relatives legally chargeable for their maintenance before the Supplementary Benefits Commission?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is a matter that I should have to consider with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Mellor: I note what my right hon. Friend says about discretion. However, is he aware that it will cause considerable dismay and confusion to British people who are working abroad that it will make a difference to their female child if she is born in Paris rather than in Putney?

Mr. Whitelaw: We believe that the birth is a clear and sensible point to take. However, I am aware of the feeling in all parts of the community and I shall be prepared to re-examine the matter before the debate.

Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman seems confident that the reaction in the country will not be the one that he met with in the House. Therefore, will he come to Manchester, address my Asian constituents, and answer their questions


on the matter? Will he also clarify paragraph 13 in the document, which is open to wide misinterpretation? There it is stated that applications under the old rules will be considered up to today, but that such applications will be legally possible right up to the laying of the new rules. The implication seems to be that applications that can legally be made under the present rules will no longer be acceptable after the publication of the White Paper, which has no force in law. Will he clarify that matter?

Mr. Whitelaw: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman or anybody else accuses me of, he cannot accuse me of being afraid to talk to anybody at any time under any circumstances. Of course, I shall do so, but I do not wish to do so under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman. I thought that I had made clear the proposals about the transitional period. All those people who are now in the fiancé queue will be considered under the present rules.

Mr. John Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that by amending his manifesto commitment that we would end the concession to all male fiancés—it has been changed to women born in this country—any difference will be felt in the vast traffic that comes into the country?

Mr. Whitelaw: I believe that our proposals are correct and that they will make a considerable difference in the numbers. If we attempted to apply the restrictions to wives and female fiancées, nationality and immigration legislation would have to be altered. We would also break our pledge to the wives and children of Commonwealth citizens who were settled here before 1973. I have made clear that the Government stand by that pledge.

Mr. Stallard: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the widespread belief that the new rules already operate and that immigration matters have been tightened up since the election? Will he assure the House that no change in the instructions to immigration officers will be given until the House has passed the necessary legislation?

Mr. Whitelaw: I should like to make absolutely clear that since the election no new instructions have been given to the immigration service. We are operating

exactly the same arrangements. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South knows, even if some of his hon. Friends do not, that the rules require very difficult decisions to be made by the Minister concerned. The hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) knows that better than most. The pressure from hon. Members on my hon. Friend the Minister of State and anyone who occupies that job are serious. I do not want the House to be in any doubt about that. Difficult decisions have to be made in each case. I have made some myself, one of which became clear today. I make some in consultation with my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
The instructions to immigration officers are the same. In defence of the immigration service, and in view of some of the things that are said about it from time to time, I should say that hon. Members should realise that in 1978 there were about 50 million passenger movements into and out of this country, half of which involved people who were subject to immigration control. They all had to be dealt with by the immigration service, under stressful conditions.
I accept that the House has every right to criticise me and other Ministers, but I hope that it will not criticise members of the immigration service, who are working under very great difficulties.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call four more hon. Members from each side of the House.

Mr. Budgen: May I remind my right hon. Friend of paragraph 83 of the Franks report, which said that it would take at least 18 months from a decision being taken by the Government for a register of dependants to come into effect? Will my right hon. Friend agree that because he is not prepared to use his considerable political authority in the Cabinet to obtain time for legislation to introduce such a register it could not come into effect before two and a half years from today?

Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend must, as I must, judge our priorities. In terms of the priorities in the legislative programme that the Government are putting before the House I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the measures in


that programme are ones to which he would wish to attach the highest priority. The matter to which he referred would require substantive legislation, and if it does not find a place in the legislative programme it will be because there are other matters that I believe—and I think that my hon. Friend would agree with me—have a higher priority.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Secretary of State confirm that under the Labour Government the rules were operated extremely tightly, that there is not, and has not been, mass immigration, and that the rules have therefore moved on to a tighter racist basis than previously? Does he agree that the Government are concerned only with uniting white families and are prepared to keep brown and black families apart?

Mr. Marlow: They can go home and rejoin their families in the country of origin.

Mr. Cryer: If the Secretary of State is concerned that immigration officers should not be criticised, will he undertake that if evidence is produced to show that the rules are being abused because of the general atmosphere engendered by the racist attitude of the Government and that immigration officers are found to be abusing their powers, he will resign?

Mr. Whitelaw: That is a sort of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. I am prepared to stand up for the immigration officers and for the policies that I have put forward. If the House repudiates those policies, or if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wishes to get rid of me, of course I shall resign. However, I must make clear that I shall stand up for the immigration officers, as did the right hon. Member for Leeds, South.
I do not accept that there has been any change in their position because of the change of Government. If that sort of accusation is made, it must be clearly substantiated. It means that those in the public services change their attitudes between one Government and another, and that is a dangerous accusation to make in this country.

Mr. Hal Miller: Has my right hon. Friend considered the report of the Select Committee on the subject of immigration,

its concern about male fiancés and husbands, and its recommendation that a continuing study should be undertaken and figures should be published? Will he undertake to publish those figures, with other immigration figures, in an accessible form in the Official Report before a debate is held on the new rules?

Mr. Whitelaw: I can give my hon. Friend some figures about fiancés. In 1975 there were barely 1,000. Three years later the number had trebled, to more than 3,000. Even with the lower priority accorded them by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South last year, the figure was still over 2,200. Of those, about three-quarters came from India and Pakistan. Those are important figures. I will consider what my hon. Friend said.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The Home Secretary has repeatedly said that an Asian girl in this country and her intended fiancé in India or Pakistan should meet before marriage. Under which section of the immigration rules will the fiancé in India or Pakistan be allowed to come here to meet his intended wife?

Mr. Whitelaw: As my hon. Friend the Minister of State has advised me—he knows all about these matters—the fiancé can come as a visitor in the first place.

Mr. Mitchell: That is not so. The right hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Since the White Paper, in spite of the heat that it has generated, does virtually nothing, can my right hon. Friend say whether his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) means that he does not intend to do anything significant about immigration at all?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am surprised that my hon, and learned Friend should say that about proposed changes which would reduce immigration by 3,000 or 4,000 a year and would go a long way towards stopping the one remaining source of male primary immigration at a time of great strains on our resources. I think that that is thoroughly worth while.

Mr. Thomas Cox: Is the Home Secretary aware that as a result of his statement we have for the first time in our history a proposal that "If you are black


or brown, you are to be a second-class citizen of the United Kingdom". That is what the right hon. Gentleman's statement means. How does the right hon. Gentleman expect Asian communities, which are some of the most law-abiding and hard working in this country, to see any benefit in working for good community relations in the areas where they live? The real victors following his statement are the thugs of the National Front, who will use it at every opportunity.

Mr. Whitelaw: I find the hon. Gentleman's statement surprising, inflammatory and unnecessary. I do not understand how he can make those remarks about a statement that preserves the position of wives and children of the heads of families already here and preserves the position of United Kingdom passport holders. How can he describe as racially discriminatory a proposal that girls born in this country, of any race, colour or creed, have exactly the same rights? I do not understand what he means.

Mr. Alan Clark: To what extent did the entry of husbands and male fiancés increase after the concession by the then Labour Home Secretary, Mr. Roy Jenkins?

Mr. Whitelaw: The restrictions were eased in 1974. The total accepted for settlement as husbands, fiancés or in some temporary capacity doubled between 1973 and 1974, and almost doubled again in 1975. It has remained broadly at that level since then.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Why is it necessary to make life even more difficult for those elderly parents and grandparents who want to join their families here? Has the right hon. Gentleman some evidence of large-scale trafficking in 80-year olds? Is he not aware that to come here now they have to meet the condition of being wholly maintained by their families? What a mean, nasty little measure this is.

Mr. Whitelaw: I find the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement surprising, because under the previous Government—he rightly stated the position—they had to show that they were wholly or mainly dependent on children in this country. We are saying that in addition they should

have to show that they are without any other relatives to whom they could turn in their own country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will tell hon. Members why. Is it so unreasonable that people who have relatives with whom they can stay in their own country should stay with those relatives? We are prepared to take those who do not have relatives in those circumstances, but surely where there are other relatives with whom they can live it is reasonable that they should stay with them there.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Peter Walker, to make a statement.

Mr. John Grant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it reasonable for the Home Secretary to present this appalling document, which refers to the work permits system, but instead of allowing hon. Members to question him on that aspect to skulk behind a planted question put down for written answer by one of his hon. Friends?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Jim Marshall: In his statement the Home Secretary has created a large area of uncertainty, which will create distress to many people in Leicester. The uncertainty arises from the interregnum, and the presentation of the White Paper to the House and the laying of the rules. If I understood the Home Secretary correctly, he said that until the new rules are laid applications in the pipeline are to be processed and perhaps a decision made under the present rules. That does not go far enough. It is that which will cause the distress. Will the existing conditions apply to the people already in the queue, with the laying of the new rules?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not something on which I can rule.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I give notice that at the end of the statement by the Minister of Agriculture I shall be making an application under Standing Order No. 9 on this matter?

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put it to you that in the interests of more certain and efficient government it is advisable that this House


should know whether the Home Secretary has sent instructions to immigration officers to operate the system that he has outlined today instead of the system of immigration control by interminable delay, which has been our shameful inheritance from the last Labour Government?

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it still the rule of the House that Ministers should not mislead the House? On a number of occasions the Home Secretary said that these new rules treat British-born citizens equally, whether they are black or white. He knows, however, that one of the rules treats an Asian girl differently, because she will not be allowed to marry according to her culture. Surely that is misleading the House. Should not the Home Secretary apologise?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are raising with me now points of debate, not points of order.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be in the interests of the House for the discussion to continue for some time? The Secretary of State made a statement that dealt substantially with iancés and husbands. The White Paper will also affect substantially a large number of aged

relatives. On my interpretation, the White Paper will virtually stop any dependent relatives entering under any circumstances, because no dependent relative is likely to have a standard of living below that—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been very tolerant. I have been allowing points to be made which hon. Members know are not points of order. I shall take another two and then we must move on.

Mr. Anderson: Will the Home Secretary comment on this point?—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is supposed to be making a point of order.

Mr. Anderson: I thought that I had been called to put a question.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is a little late.

Mr. Stan Thorne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I give you notice of my intention to raise a matter under Standing Order No. 9 in regard to the statement we have just heard?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear, but I was given notice a few moments ago that someone else proposes to raise the matter under Standing Order No. 9.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURE MINISTERS MEETING)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Council of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels on 12–13 November at which I represented the United Kingdom.
No decision was reached on the sheep-meat regime, and further discussions will take place at the December meeting of the Council. In the discussion that took place, we had support from other member States for our view that there should be no form of intervention. The French and Irish Ministers seem no longer to be pressing for a renegotiation of the GATT arrangements with New Zealand and other third countries—a proposal rejected by the Commission, the United Kingdom and all other member States.
I made it clear that any transitional system of premium payments would have to be fair to the United Kingdom and not result in the British taxpayer simply paying for other countries to retain benefits that arose from the illegal import controls imposed by the French Government.
The Council discussed proposed measures on wine, structures, alcohol and potatoes but no progress was made.

Mr. Mason: The House is obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and appreciates especially that he regularly reports back from the meetings of the Agriculture and Fisheries Councils even though, as he has indicated today, there is little progress to report.
On sheepmeat, will he assure the House that at the December Council he will protect New Zealand's right to export to the Common Market and particularly to the United Kingdom? Also, although at this stage intervention seems to be ruled out, if he is pressed further at the December Council, will he state that France, on the basis of its own social and political grounds, can fund intervention itself and that there should be no funds for that purpose from the Common Market or the United Kingdom? Will he continue to bear in mind the cost of free access of sheepmeat to

France on the British consumer? As he knows, British sheepmeat could rise in price by up to 20 per cent. to the British consumer, with a possible knock-on effect on other meat prices as well. What safeguards has he in mind for the British consumer?
As for our own sheep farmers, has the right hon. Gentleman anything to say today about the hill livestock compensatory allowances? If any group of people in the agricultural community in Britain has suffered in recent months and has a genuine case for help, it is the sheep farmers on the hills. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say something positive about that today.
Were there no discussions on milk, on the co-responsibility levy, on sugar and on a quota, and were there any preparatory discussions on the restructuring of the CAP?

Mr. Walker: Sugar and the restructuring of the CAP were not on the agenda. We dealt with those matters at the previous meeting. I guess that they will reappear on the agenda at the December meeting.
I can give a categorical assurance that under no circumstances would we change the present arrangements for New Zealand unless it were at the request of the New Zealand Government on a voluntary arrangement that they wanted for their benefit. If they do not want such a change, we shall keep the existing arrangements and would certainly agree to no change in them. If there were intervention in France, it should be at the cost of the French Government. I assure the House in no way will the Government support Community financing of an intervention policy on sheep-meat.
As regards lamb and hill livestock subsidies, there was an increase of 50p as a result of last winter. I promised a review. It has taken place. The Government will make an announcement on the result of it. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that he is sympathetic with the British hill farmer but wants lamb prices to the consumer to be kept down.

Mr. Peter Mills: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the stand that he


takes on these matters. Does he agree that as this is a national problem in France, with social implications, the French should pay the premium or the deficiency payments? Why should the Community as a whole have to pay for this? Surely national problems should be dealt with by the national Exchequer.

Mr. Walker: I agree with my hon. Friend. When the Community changes a regime, it makes transitional arrangements for those affected. The Government make the clear point that the French and Irish prices of sheepmeat are totally related to the illegal actions of the French Government over the past two years.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that his statement that no decision had been made on sheepmeat means that the French are winning, as they will shortly concede the matter when the issue is finished for this year? What action does he intend to take on that? Secondly, will he repeat his assurance that the fishing issue will be kept separate and not mixed up in a future package deal?

Mr. Walker: On the first point, the contrary is true. The French Government have been demanding an immediate Community-financed sheepmeat regime. The French Government would be winning if we agreed to that. However, we have totally disagreed.

Mr. William Hamilton: As the United Kingdom is the most lucrative market for European food producers, does not that put us in an extremely strong negotiating position? Will the Minister seriously consider retaliatory action against the French, who are deliberately defying a European Court of Justice statement?

Mr. Walker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's suggestion—indeed, it has been suggested by many people—that we should immediately retaliate. I ask the House to judge by results. My judgment is that the French Government are now discovering that their actions are creating a considerable disadvantage to France in the Council of Ministers. There is a range of matters of immense importance to France. I judge that soon the French Government will sensibly decide to comply with the law. If in the interim period we had decided to disregard the law in exactly the same way, and other Com

munity countries had done the same, we could have discovered a range of factors adversely affecting all European countries. I much prefer to lead the pressure on the French during this period as I believe that it will be successful.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is it seemly for my right hon. Friend to sit down with the French, while they are in contempt of court, and discuss new rules until such time as they have shown their willingness to obey the present rules? What is the point of discussing new regimes and new rules which can be broken in just the same way as the French are breaking the present ones?

Mr. Walker: That point is perfectly valid. It was made clear by the other members of the Council of Ministers and myself. This is how we proceeded tactically. We said that we should have every right to show total contempt of the discussions and to retaliate in a similarly illegal way but pointed out that if the French continued that would be the result for the whole of Europe. I believe that we shall succeed in making the French act legally without doing considerable damage to Europe as a whole.

Mr. Wm Ross: Is the Minister aware that there is not a common market for livestock products for the Nine—only for the Six? The French livestock authority, has the right to impose restrictions on imports from Denmark, the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom. Was that matter raised by the Minister at the recent meeting? Does he now intend to seek from the House powers to impose restrictions on imports into the United Kingdom to protect our farmers?

Mr. Walker: The French Government have not had such rights since 1 January 1978. That is why they are acting illegally. France decided to exercise the law correctly in relation to Ireland but to act illegally towards us. The European Court found against the French. They are now finding that their negotiating position and standing in Europe are fast deteriorating, to their national disadvantage, as a result of their attitude. That is why I believe that they will change their attitude.

Mr. Jay: Does the Minister's welcome assurance on New Zealand apply both to sheepmeat and dairy produce?

Mr. Walker: There are two different positions. The legal right of access of dairy products finishes at the end of 1980. Therefore, the New Zealand Government are currently renegotiating with the Commission a continuation of the voluntary arrangements that have existed up to now. They have a legal right under GATT, which preserves their position for all time.

Mr. David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has the support of the entire House in the attitude he takes on sheepmeat? Has he succeeded in persuading his fellow Ministers that we must insist on the importation of New Zealand sheepmeat as it is sold on the mass market, and that it is necessary to import it at one end of the year to balance our own production at the other?

Mr. Walker: The position was made clear. The New Zealand issue is said by one or two other member States to undermine immensely the agricultural market. It does not do that. It plays a traditional role in the British market. We intend to ensure that it continues in that role.

Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister aware that the question of seal management is causing concern in Scotland and the North of England? Is it within the recollection of the Minister that Mr. Gundelach set up a study of the grey seal population in the North Sea? What has become of that study? What action is likely to be taken? Does he agree that the matter should be dealt with by all States riparian to the North Sea and not on a single State basis, as seals do not understand international frontiers?

Mr. Walker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He raised this topic with me previously, but I did not follow it up. I shall now do so. I shall contact Mr. Gundelach and then write to the hon. Gentleman.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call three speakers from either side and then the Minister.

Mr. Proctor: How far has my right hon. Friend gone with the fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy? If not very far, could he place the item on the agenda of the December Council of Ministers meeting?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend referred to the fundamental reform of the CAP. There has been a discussion on the overall financial problems of the CAP. In terms of the review of price fixing that will take place and the ceiling now being reached on budget expenditure, the Community will be required to decide where its priorities are and where it can make savings. We made clear that from this point onwards, if there is any increased expenditure under the CAP, similar savings must be found. That is bringing a fundamental, new approach to the CAP.

Mr. Hardy: I welcome the belated and mild recognition by the Government of the inadequacies of the European agricultural system and the fact that they have begun a modest effort to secure some improvement. Does the Minister consider that his efforts have been assisted or embarrassed by the line taken in Europe by some of the farmer Tory Members of the European Parliament?

Mr. Walker: All the farmer Tory Members are splendid. They make a good contribution.

Mr. Moate: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the determined stand he takes on the sheepmeat regime. I hope that he will continue that stance. Has he taken into account the complaints made about the French dumping their apples here at the height of our apple-growing season? Did he raise those allegations at the last meeting of the Council of Ministers? If not, will he do so soon?

Mr. Walker: I have looked at a number of examples of the very low prices notified to me for golden delicious apples in Britain. There is no evidence of dumping from the cases we have examined. If any merchant or producer has evidence of dumping, we will speedily examine it.

Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister comment on the contention, widely held in France, that after the end of this year our health regulations will not prevent the mass importation of French milk?

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me the opportunity to make our position clear. In the only legal case concerning milk which has been taken up on health grounds, the Advocate General of the European Court,


in his summing up, made a strong recommendation in favour of the British health regulations. Unfortunately, the judgment of the Court was made on another factor—the metric package—and it omitted any judgment on the health regulations. We believe that our regulations are justified and that the Advocate General was right in recommending in our favour. Therefore, we will keep our health regulations. On the evidence so far, we are confident that we shall win when this case is eventually decided by the European Court.

Mr. Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House appreciate his determined fight on the issue of lamb exports? He will appreciate that the French will win on this because it is a seasonal market. In his statement he made no mention of pigmeat. If my right hon. Friend listens very carefully, he will hear, throughout the Isle of Wight and Hampshire, the last dying gasps of the United Kingdom pig industry.

Mr. Walker: I am always sensitive to snorts from the Isle of Wight and Hampshire. As for a French victory, I hope that the French will quickly comply with the law. We will not simply have free access to that market then but we will have access free of all levies. Even at those seasonable times when the market has been open to British sheepmeat, our exports have been subject to very heavy levies indeed. In future there will be a considerable improvement.
I am glad to say that prices in the pigmeat industry have improved in the last few months. I hope that they will continue to do so, although I remain disturbed as MCAs are again created with the subsequent disadvantage to our pigmeat industry.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman expand on the answer he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) on the hill livestock compensatory allowances? Our hill farmers have experienced two very bad winters and are now getting less in cast ewes than they were getting four years ago. Will he also indicate whether in future the review will take place at a different time of the year, because now that the hill farmers have put their sheep

to market it is far too late for them to be compensated fully for the expenses?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the last Labour Government were responsible for the timing of the review. As a result of that review, they decided to give a further 50p. We have paid that 50p in accordance with the previous Administration's assessment of the needs because it was not known what prices would be at the latter end of the year. At that time the forecasts were optimistic and I promised that we would review the position in relation to the prices reached at the end of this year. We have fulfilled that promise and I shall announce the result shortly.

Mr. Speaker: Was the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) present when I said that I would call those hon. Members who had been rising? No, I think not. However, in the mood of the House. I think I can call the hon. Member.

Mr. Geraint Howells: May I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister? I congratulate the Minister on his stand in Europe, but can he give us an assurance that he will not accept the intervention system now being proposed by the other European countries? In view of the present problem within the sheep industry, will he consider increasing the guarantee deficiency payment by 20p per kilo forthwith?

Mr. Walker: The answer to the latter question is "No". The answer to the first is that I stated at the Council of Ministers that under no circumstances would the British Government agree to an intervention system in sheepmeat. If, therefore, member countries persist in, and insist on, such a system, there will not be a sheepmeat regime.

Mr. Strang: Contrary to the impression given by the right hon. Gentleman in his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), there is no conflict between the interests of lamb producers and those of the consumers. The present system of headage payments and deficiency payments provides a framework within which we have reasonable prices for consumers and adequate returns for producers. Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that we retain the deficiency payment system and will he indicate when he intends to make his eagerly awaited


statement on compensatory allowances? I think that he will accept, notwithstanding the 50p increase, that the plight of the industry is substantially worse than it was at this time last year.

Mr. Walker: I agree that the industry's position is worse. The previous Government's assessment was wrong and they were not generous enough. In my original statement I made it clear that we would review the matter at the beginning of November, that we would announce the results at the beginning of December and that the payment would be made in January. I hope to make the announcement before the beginning of December. That means that we will comply completely with the review I promised earlier in the year.
In relation to the consumer price and the effect on the sheep market, I hope that members of the Labour Party will make it clear whether they are opposed to or in favour of our producers having free access to Europe. If they are suggesting that free access of British food products to the European market should be stopped in the hope that the surpluses and the difficulty of getting rid of them would force down prices, I hope that they appreciate that that would be of very short-term advantage to the consumers. Such a scheme would destroy the producers, and that is of no use to consumers.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) to make his application under Standing Order No. 9, I should tell the House that I have also received notice of an application from the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne). Since it is the same request, I give precedence to the right hon. Gentleman, who made it first.

IMMIGRATION RULES

Mr. Kaufman: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
The change in the immigration rules carried out without parliamentary authority whereby applications will, under the White

Paper presented today, no longer be acceptable from today, even though made legally under the present immigration rules.
The Home Secretary failed to reply with clarity to a question I put to him concerning paragraph 13 of the White Paper published today on proposals for revision of the immigration rules. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read the relevant sentence from the handouts:
The new Rules would apply to all applications on which a decision is taken on or after the date on which the new Rules are laid but the Government will be prepared to consider on the basis of the present Rules all applications made before the date of publication of this White Paper".
As I understand it, in so far as there is any clarity in that sentence, what it means is that the changes in the rules affecting aged parents, children, male fiances, husbands and a number of others that are proposed in this White Paper will come into force legally only when the rules are tabled and approved by this House. The Home Secretary made it clear in his statement that that will not be for some time. First, we are to have a debate on the White Paper, and only after that debate will the rules be laid for approval. However, even though the change will be legal only from the date of the approval of the rules by this House, the White Paper tells us that the Government will be prepared to consider, on the basis of the present rules—that is, those which have legal force until the new rules are approved by the House—all applications made before the date of publication of this White Paper.
What that means is that, following the publication of the White Paper at 11 o'clock today, applications can be legally made under the present rules and should be treated in good faith as applications made under the present law. Yet the White Paper ultra vires states that none of these applications will be acceptable. The law is being changed by a parliamentary statement. The rights of many thousands of people are affected simply as a result of a statement by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons. That is not acceptable in terms of the authority of the House and the rule of law.
The matter is specific because the Home Secretary has published a White Paper, made a statement about it and failed in answer to questions to clarify


the position. The White Paper must therefore stand as tabled.
The matter is important because it affects thousands of human beings. It affects people who, until the rules are changed, will have a legal right to make applications but whose applications will be a farce because the White Paper states that they will not be treated as they should he treated under the law.
The matter is urgent because the change, unless the House is allowed to debate it, has been made since 11 o'clock today when the White Paper was published. Even the Home Secretary's promise that there will be a debate on the issue, which could be in a few days' time, will not set right a situation which exists ultra vires outside the law from this morning.
I submit that my application qualifies as an urgent matter under the Standing Order. We cannot wait for a debate even if it is announced in the Business Statement tomorrow. Immigration officers at our posts, in the sub-continent in particular, will have to operate on the basis of messages sent out to them from the Home Office and advance copies of the White Paper. They will deal with applications not on the basis of the law as it stands but on the basis of an illegal message sent to them by the Home Secretary.
I submit that this matter is specific, urgent and important. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give it precedence.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the change in the immigration rules carried out without parliamentary authority whereby applications will, under the White Paper presented today, no longer be acceptable from today, even though made legally under the present immigration rules.
I listened with care to the exchange earlier today. I listened with equal care to what the right hon. Gentleman said. As the House knows, I do not decide whether this subject should be debated. It has been announced that the House will debate it. All that my discretion allows is to decide whether it should be debated tonight or tomorrow.
The House has instructed me to give no reasons for my decision when such applications are made. I have given careful consideration to the representation, but I have to rule that the right hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

POLICE AUTHORITIES (POWERS)

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Police Act 1964 and certain other enactments to establish and extend the powers and duties of police authorities in respect of the operations and organisation of police forces.
The last major examination of the accountability of the police was by the Royal Commission on the Police which reported in 1962. The Royal Commission discussed at length the relationship between the police and the public. It noted that a chief constable
is accountable to no one, and subject to no one's orders, for the way in which for example, he settles his general policies in regard to law enforcement and the concentration of resources on any particular type of crime or area…
The question therefore arises whether the status of chief constable should continue in future to shield him from external control in the formulation and application of … police policies … Behind this too lies the broader question whether the community should have some voice through their elected representatives … in the maintenance of law and order.
The Royal Commission's conclusion was clear. It stated:
It appears to us … that the chief constable should therefore, be subject to more effective supervision than the present arrangements apear to recognise.
The Royal Commission led to the Police Act 1964. The then Home Secretary, the right hon. Henry Brooke, on Second Reading echoed the Royal Commission's views when he said:
The Royal Commission thought … that chief constables are not at present adequately accountable. I agree.
Earlier he said:
One of the lessons of modern times is that a police system, instituted to defend freedom and maintain law and order, must itself be under effective control."—[Official Report, 26 November 1963, Vol. 685, c. 83–4.]
Unfortunately, as the local authorities and some hon. Members said at the time, these good intentions were translated neither into the small print of the Police Act nor into the general philosophy of the Home Office on the accountability of the police. Since the 1964 Act the accountability of the police, far from being increased, has been weakened.
There are other reasons for this lack of accountability than the inadequacy of the Act. First, the size of police forces has increased. In 1962 there were 123 police forces in England and Wales outside the Metropolitan area. Some of those forces covered populations as small as 60,000. Today there are only 41 police forces, each with an average population of 1 million and none with fewer than 400,000. Whatever the other arguments in favour of larger police forces—and I accept that there are some—their size alone tends to distance the police, particularly senior officers, from the public.
It is no coincidence that the loss of accountability and the feeling of greater distance between the senior officers and the public is most apparent in some of the large cities and towns. Manchester. Liverpool and Sheffield are examples. Before 1964 those cities and my constituency, Blackburn, had their own police forces. Each of them was controlled by a watch committee consisting entirely of elected members. Those committees had the power of promotion and dismissal over all the officers down to sergeant and constable. Today those cities are policed by much larger forces which are more remote. They are responsible to police authorities, only two-thirds of whose members are councillors. They have few effective powers.
A second reason for the loss of accountability and for the greater distance between the police and the public is that, as forces have become larger, a new breed of chief constable has developed. They are more assertive of their independence. The Association of Chief Police Officers has, according to The Guardian, adopted a
deliberate policy to come out into the open more … attempting to influence public opinion and the courts via the media.
Some of the chief constables have not confined themselves to policing policies but have beer, willing to engage in explicit political controversy. The best publicised example of this new breed, although by no means the only one, is the chief constable of Greater Manchester, Mr. James Anderton. Not only has he sought to have the law changed on many questions, but on television recently, when discussing the sex discrimination laws, he pronounced that he


might openly defy the law of the land. That is hardly the example which a chief constable should set.
There are other examples of the new assertiveness of police constables. It has led, and will lead, to increasingly strained relations between police authorities and their chiefs, as it did in South Yorkshire in 1977 and has today on Merseyside. The chief constable of Merseyside, Mr. Oxford, is reported to have told his police authority to keep out of his force's business. The authority has had to set up an inquiry into its powers.
The Police Act has not worked as intended. Today, 15 years after its enactment, it is time to translate the good intentions behind the Act into good practice.
My Bill seeks to make five improvements. First, it seeks to give police authorities the right to decide, subject to two important safeguards, general policing policies for their areas. I believe strongly that elected representatives have the right to a say on the general policing methods adopted in an area, whether they involve policemen on the beat or in panda cars or whether the new vogue of community policing is to be adopted.
I firmly believe, and share the view expressed by the Royal Commission, that chief constables must have independence in the deployment of police in particular cases and public order situations and over the prosecution of cases. There would be two important safeguards to chief constables—first, to delay a police authority decision for a period, and, secondly, to have the right to refer it to the Home Office for a decision where a chief constable thought that it had infringed upon his area of discretion. In that respect, that mechanism is similar to the present mechanism under section 12 of the Police Act 1964.
Secondly, the Bill would give authorities more power to obtain information from chief constables. Their present powers are woefully inadequate. That power would be subject to important safeguards in relation to personal, operational, and security information, and information that would be of use to criminals.
Thirdly, the police authority would have the power of appointment, promotion and dismissal extended downwards

to chief superintendents and superintendents. Technically, the authorities already appoint chief officers. It would extend downwards because in today's large forces the superintendents and chief superintendents are in many respects fulfilling the roles formerly fulfilled by chief constables of the smaller forces.
Fourthly, the police authority's powers to supervise the complaints procedure would be strengthened and duties in respect of complaints against senior officers—which is a subject close to our hearts in Lancashire—would be more clearly specified.
Fifthly, there would be closer consultation and co-operation between Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Police and the police authority over the reports that are conducted each year on the police forces.
To those who say that police matters should be kept out of politics, I would say this. The Bill preserves the independence of chief constables over certain cases, but matters of general policing policy have always been, and always will be, a subject of legitimate political concern. In so far as the interest of politicians in general policing policy has been heightened, some chief constables have only themselves to blame. To adapt the late President Truman's injunction to politicians, having got into the political kitchen, chief constables should not now complain about feeling the heat.
It must be accepted also that the politicisation of chief constables is in part inherent in the present system. In some respects chief constables have been forced into politics by their lack of accountability for their decisions. They have become the final arbiters of many crucial policy matters and have been forced to adopt an overtly political role to defend these decisions.
The success of the police depends ultimately not on the number of vehicles, firearms, riot shields or computer terminals available but upon the confidence of the public. I share the view of the chief constable of Devon and Cornwall. Mr. John Alderson, who earlier this year wrote in The Daily Telegraph:
It is of crucial importance that this debate
—that is, about the police in a free society—
leads to sensible social action if rocketing democracy is not to leave behind an authoritarian police system designed for 19th century


England… The police have to learn to consult the neighbourhood people about their concerns, their wishes and their co-operation".
My Bill aims to provide a new framework in which that co-operation can be achieved.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jack Straw, Mr. Stan Thorne, Mr. Allan Roberts, Dr. Oonagh McDonald, Mr. Ron Leighton and Mr. Michael Meacher.

POLICE AUTHORITIES (POWERS)

Mr. Jack Straw accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Police Act 1964 and certain other enactments to establish and extend the powers and duties of police authorities in respect of the operations and organisation of police forces: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 7 December and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (GREEKACCESSION) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

Clause 1

EXTENDED MEANING OF "THE TREATIES" AND "THE COMMUNITY TREATIES"

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I assume that I may address myself, Mr. Weatherill, to the amendment that stands in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

The Chairman: The amendment is not selected. The hon. Lady may draw attention to it while debating "clause 1 stand part", but not address herself to it.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful for that helpful remark, Mr. Weatherill. One of the joys of parliamentary life is that one is eternally having these little disappointments.
It is an important Bill and the Government have drawn it extremely narrowly. I must ask you, Mr. Weatherill, to consider some of the implications. One of the difficulties that we have encountered in the House of Commons since we entered the Community is that there does not seem to be an efficient way of informing ourselves about the details of the many negotiations that take place in Brussels.
The most important plank of Community policy is agriculture. With its subsidiary budget, it takes about 80 per cent. of the money available. The enlargement of the Community by three new largely agriculture-based economies must have a direct effect upon the budget. Since we entered the Community it has become the custom, a good one, for Ministers to come to the House of Commons to report on the negotiations that have taken place in the Council of Ministers, and in many instances directly with the Commission. However, even Conservative hon. Members would not suggest that the machinery is in any way efficient. On many occasions I have taken


part in debates, with not only the present Government but previous Governments, about important subjects that were to be decided finally in the Council of Ministers. Governments take note of the opinion of the House of Commons but often take decisions in Brussels without reporting back on subsequent developments.
The amendment, which unfortunately has has not been selected, was aimed at giving the Government the opportunity to come to the House of Commons annually to report on not only the existing budget of the Community but, for example, on the effect of the accession of Greece. It would give them the specific chance to explain in detail what is happening. We are at a stage in the Community's development which some of us believe to be crucial. Will it continue to rush at great speed to the hour when all of the money runs out, or will it begin to discuss in a sensible manner how it may be funded in future? If it is, the accession of the new States must be a great element in the decisions that are taken about future financing.
The Government have been astonishingly modest in the amount of information that they have given the House of Commons about the effect of Greek accession. We have made it plain that we welcome countries such as Greece into the Community. We believe that it is essential for the maintenance of democracy in the battered State of Greece that it be allowed to accede if that is what the Greek people require. However, it is obvious from the papers that have been produced by the Commission that the effect on the budget will be considerable.
It appears from the Commission papers that it is suggested that Greece should have a long period of accession, and that during that period it should be guaranteed a certain amount of financial support. It is obvious that Greece will expect from the guarantee funds, for example, considerable transfers of moneys. It will require assistance with its infrastructure. It will certainly require assistance with irrigation. If it is to modernise its existing farm system, it will expect the same sort of support as farmers in the north have been receiving from the Community.
There has been no indication from the Government that they are even prepared to debate in the Chamber the effect that

Greek accession will have on the Community budget and the moneys that will be available for Greece. There is no existing machinery for the transfer of large sums from the so-called richer nations to the poorer nations in the Community. It may be said that the regional fund and the social fund should be used to change any imbalance, but those of us who have spent some years sitting in the European Parliament have learnt to our considerable distress that the machinery for transferring such sums is unwieldy and slow-moving. It has only small sums at its disposal.

The Chairman: Order. I hope that I have not misled the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody). The Committee is debating "clause 1 stand part". I have not selected amendment No. 1. The hon. Lady's remarks seem to relate rather more to new clause 1, which I have selected. That clause will be taken after we have disposed of the motions that clauses 1 and 2 stand part of the Bill.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I stand corrected, Mr. Weatherill. I shall try to be a better girl in future.
Greek accession must automatically change the entire composition of the Community. The changes that it brings about must perforce affect Great Britain. If I may, I shall address myself to those changes.
The agriculture budget will inevitably be increased. Are we to see in Dublin the Prime Minister's boasts that she is demanding a broad balance carried out, or are we to have a climb-down and discover that the budget will become larger and that Britain's contribution will remain disproportionately large? If that is so, I think that the Minister has a great deal of explaining to do in Committee.
When Greece becomes a member of the Community, it will have a number of changes to make. Are we to see changes that will enable the system of State aids to continue? At present, Greece supports many of its most sensitive State industries. It supports shipbuilding. That is not a State industry, but it receives assistance. The Greek Government also support the textile industry. The British Government have been silent on the implications for British textile workers following Greek accession. These are sensitive subjects.


There are not many trade barriers between Britain and Greece, but are the Government convinced that the long-term and even the short-term safeguards for our workers in the textile industry are sufficient to protect them in future? We seek the Government's view on these issues. There has been little indication of what will happen.
5.15 pm
Under the Treaty the effect of Greek accession must inevitably change the institutions of the Community. That will be tremendously important. What is to happen about languages? There has been a clear indication over a number of years that the cacophony of sounds created by instant translation makes life in the Community virtually impossible for those who are trying to communicate. Following Greek accession, it seems that we shall have even more interpreters and translators.
The institutions of the Community are already hardly the epitome of rapid decision-making processes. However, they are to bear an extra burden. Will there be a change in the number of Commissioners? If Britain reduces the number of Commissioners that it sends to Brussels, how is that to be arranged and what will be the effect on the machinery of the Commission? All these issues have been ignored by the Minister.
The Government have not told us what they imagine will come about as a result of the accession of Greece. I am disturbed that there has been no reiteration of the implications of the Copenhagen declaration. We are part of a multination Community. If by some dreadful mischance one member of the Community should cease to support a democratic system and should cease to take care of the human rights of the people inside that country, surely the declaration will apply. Surely it will apply to both old and new members of the Community. The Opposition would like to see it stressed by the House of Commons and by Her Majesty's Government that it is vital that new and old members maintain, adhere to, and understand the need for, human rights for all citizens of the Community.
There have been a number of Amnesty reports about the situation inside Greece. The reports have given rise to fears about

some past practices in Greece. We all pray that they have now totally disappeared. However, I have received a number of letters from Greek citizens about human rights in Greece. These letters ask Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the subject is not lost sight of in the negotiations that must take place to allow Greece to enter the Community
I give the Government a small but important example. Jehovah's Witnesses in Greece, as the Minister undoubtedly knows, are suffering considerably because they are not prepared to join the Armed Forces. In many instances, they are given extremely long prison sentences. When they leave prison, they are offered their call-up papers at the prison gates. When they refuse to accept them, the process starts all over again. It is important in the countries of the Community that religious freedom and political freedom should remain a part of our heritage. Britain has a special responsibility to draw the attention of all member States, and all new member States, to the essential aspect that those freedoms must play in a democratic organisation.
In terms of the entire agriculture industry, Greece is a tiny country. Many of its farms are small. A disproportionate number of Greeks are involved in agriculture. It produces products that are already sensitive in the Community. It is obvious that those products will add to the surpluses. I am not sure that even the Greeks have understood the extent to which their accession will affect their balance of payments problems. Greece, like Britain, imports certain basic commodities that are part of the common agricultural policy. Greece exports commodities as to which it will not necessarily benefit from the common agricultural policy.
Greece may find the need to renegotiate some points of agricultural policy after entry into the Community. Our long experience shows the inefficacy of such a move. I hope that these matters will be borne in mind in discussions about the agricultural budget and all aspects of the payments. At present the figures in the budget show that the split between north and south in the Community is a real one. In the north, there is support for farmers producing milk, cereals and products of a temperate


zone. Although a Mediterranean plan has been started by the Community, the assistance going to sensitive products like wine, olive oil, fruit and early vegetables is minimal in comparison with the amount spent on milk. This inevitably means a long transition period for Greece in those products of her own that are extremely sensitive. It will be a seven-year period, we are told, for commodities such as peaches.
At the same time, Greece will have to accept Community laws in matters such as free movement of capital. This means that multinational companies will be able to go into Greece, set up industrial units and benefit from what they see as a low wage economy and move their capital freely backwards and forwards. The political implications of such arrangements for Greece may be considerable.
The extension of the Community should be welcomed, not least for the fact that it provides an opportunity to examine the existing machinery to see where it has been going wrong and how it needs to be changed. Her Majesty's Opposition have never made any secret of the fact that they regard the existing European agricultural policy as totally inequitable and unacceptable. There have been a great many emotive statements since this Government took office which directly contradict the view they took before the election. Any criticism of the Community's agricultural policy by the previous Labour Government was treated by Conservative Members as proof of the fact that we were bad Europeans. It is interesting that the Conservative Government have changed their view so radically in such a short time. But we welcome their conversion.
We believe that the agricultural policy and the Community budget are the most sensitive and important matters to be decided. Finn Gundelach made clear over 18 months ago that this monster was eating up the substance of the Community and the substance of the agricultural budget, leaving nothing for those aspects of Community policy that many would like to have seen developed.
What will be the effect of the accession of a new nation? Will there be a new transitional fund? Will there be a new mechanism for moving moneys from the Community into those areas most desperately

in need? If so, what will be the cost? Whatever the future of the Community, and however great the pressures put on the new member States, a stable EEC can be maintained only if there is a degree of fairness between one country and another. That fairness must not exist simply between north and south. It must exist between those who are rich and those who are less rich. Until that balance is achieved, the Conservative Government will be failing in their duty if they do not spell out the implications of the changes that are to take place.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The size of attendance in the Committee fails to reflect the importance of this matter. I would like to associate myself with many of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody), although we took a different view on the accession of Britain to the Community. I am glad that the circumstances allow us to talk, not stridently and not vituperatively, but quietly and seriously, to Foreign Office Ministers.
I wonder whether the Community has fully tumbled to what it is trying to chew off, if that is the right expression, in terms of enlargement. At this time last year I attended a lecture by Guido Brunner, the Energy Commissioner, at Heriot-Watt university, just outside my constituency. Talking about the enlargement of the Community to include Greece, Portugal and Spain, he said:
To me this is an exciting challenge. We owe a duty to the new democracies of southern Europe. There will, of course, be problems. The British are already uneasy about the CAP. I cannot say that its workings will be made easier by the addition of large quantities of Mediterranean produce. There is also the problem of regional imbalances.
This was a speech by a very intelligent and concerned Commissioner. He went on:
We have to admit that in the 20 years of the existence of the Community, it has made little progress in ironing out regional disparities in terms of employment, productivity and incomes. The man in Hamburg still earns six times more than the man in Palermo and this gap may get worse with enlargement. Just to quote a few figures; income per head in Portugal is only 32 per cent. of the Community average; in Greece, it is 44 per cent.; and in Spain, 54 per cent.
This is the rub. Commissioner Brunner went on:
Enlargement will increase the Community's GNP by 10 per cent., but the population will


grow by 20 per cent., and there will be 50 per cent. more farmers.
Something has to give. I do not object to the endless statements from the Minister of Agriculture and other Ministers—it is proper that they should come to the House to make them—but I wonder how many people, in the build-up to the Dublin summit, have tumbled to the fact that far from solving the CAP problems the number of farmers will be increased by 50 per cent. One cannot, of course, contest the entry of embryo democracies such as Portugal and Spain. I agree with Commissioner Brunner that he was not quoting these figures as an argument against enlargement. He said:
I give them to reveal the magnitude of the task before us. We must not ignore them, otherwise our efforts may be inadequate. It is a daunting challenge. We must prove equal to it.
I realise that there is no easy answer to a question that I would have put to my own Government I do not pose it, therefore, in any vituperative way. One is, however, entitled to ask Foreign Office Ministers about their thinking on the matter. Do we really understand precisely what we are letting ourselves in for? It may be said that we have to face the fact that income distribution will be no different. If that is the case, the Greek and Portuguese farmers and the Spanish peasants had better be told. That is not their understanding of the position.
I speak with some knowledge, having been a member of the European Parliament Greek Committee that went twice to Greece and held many meetings in Luxembourg and elsewhere. I am not making these remarks off the top of my head. It is an extremely difficult subject. It is not a subject on which I would want to try to score cheap points off any Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe referred to the question of language, a matter of medium importance, which I raised in the previous debate on 30 October. I hope to be forgiven if I quote the letter that I received from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 5 November, which referred to my contribution on 30 October. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said:

The new Member States will expect to have their languages added to the list of official languages of the Community. (As you know there are six at present: French, German, Italian, Dutch, Danish and English.) It is right that Ministers and other represenatives of each State should be able to speak in their native language when they wish to; and authentic texts of Community documents must, for purposes of legal implementation, exist in the administrative language of each Member State.
One can hardly gainsay that.
5.30 pm
The hon. Member went on:
Within the limits imposed by these principles, we would be happy to see a rationalisation of the use of languages at working level. A good deal of the work of the Community is already carried out in a limited number of languages common to the participants in a particular meeting, without being rendered into all six. This is a question which the Report of the Three Wise Men"—
that is the former right hon. Member for Birkenhead, Mr. Edmund Dell, and his colleagues—
on the machinery and procedures of the institutions is expected to touch on.
Can we have any interim guidelines from Mr. Dell and his colleagues? If so, can the Minister of State say anything about it? How are they expected to solve the problem? Unless one is firm on the question of language, the machinery that has built up becomes impossible. It is very easy to talk about how many translators there will be from Danish into Portuguese and from Greek into Danish. One could go on like that. Nevertheless, as those of us who have had the privilege of being Members of the European Assembly or Parliament, according to taste, for four years know, this is a factory for documentation. To put it mildly, the Commission is no better now.
Unless the amount of documentation is cut down, it rises at an exponential rate. There must be some understanding at an early stage of what should be done. I do not make too much of the Cyrillic alphabet, but during the discussions the Greeks said "So many of us understand English and French so well that it is really no problem" Did they mean that? Every Minister has a right to insist on speaking in his own language. On the other hand, there are many peripheral documents, and one must ask what we intend to do about this. If everyone insists on his rights, the whole thing will


become hopelessly and completely unwieldy.
That is a minor matter. I asked another question during the previous debate, and I repeat it because it was not answered. What will be the institutional effect of entry? One can understand that the Commission and Commissioner setups worked quite well when there were six nations. It became more difficult when there were nine. But just spatchcocking in three extra Commissioners because there are more States does not seem to me to be a sensible way of trying to build an efficient organisation. It might be better to go back to the drawing board.
For example, when people design aircraft they do not exactly add extra weight to an existing machine in order to make it bigger. Equally, it may not be all right to try to build on to the existing administrative machine. [Interruption.] There is no point in asking questions of the Minister when he is engaging in a conversation with one of his hon. Friends. There is no point in trying to build on to the existing administrative machine something that may have been suitable on previous occasions. However, now that circumstances are qualitatively different it simply will not work.
If and when there is a Turkish application, which is not quite so fantastic as it might have seemed even a year ago, what happens then? We can hardly deny the Turks. The truth about the Turks is that they think that they have the worst of all possible worlds in their present association agreement. They want either full membership or Third world status. It is one or the other. They do not want to go on as they are doing at the present time. This has been made clear by the Turkish delegation that came to Luxembourg last year. A problem will arise in that respect. I am asking for the thoughts of the Minister of State on the way in which the Commission and, indeed, the Council of Ministers should operate, given the new circumstances.
I should like to refer briefly to the question of the European Parliament. It is an absurdity that this should be a peripatetic Parliament. I read in the press this morning that there was a debate in Strasbourg yester

day to which Mrs. Clwyd and others contributed. Everyone seems to be passing the buck. The Commission says that it cannot comment on the costs of other institutions travelling around like a circus and being peripatetic. The Council of Ministers seems to indicate that it is not exactly its busines to do so. Therefore, I suppose that it comes back to the national Parliaments.
Those of us who had the experience of four years in the European Assembly, whatever our views on membership, are all united in the view that this is an expensive and inefficient way of operating. It drains not only Members but officials, who have to spend much of their time deciding who wants such-and-such a document for a particular committee. This is not a serious way of going about things. I do not think that even anti-Marketeers would wish to bring the Community into disrepute by having a peripatetic parliament or circus.
The entry of new partners gives us an opportunity to rethink the important question of the siting of the institutions, which is far more than a logistic issue. This is related to another matter of efficiency that I also raised last time but which was not commented upon. That is the whole question of the revolving presidency. I can imagine that there will soon be another British presidency. As I understand it, that president will probably work extremely hard and will spend about four months preparing for the presidency. He will work in that capacity for about three months, and the following three months will be spent on the hand-over. That is no way to do a job. It is no way to set about matters at all.
It is not only a question of Ministers changing. As we all know, in a democracy Ministers change as a result of elections or Cabinet shuffles. However, the more serious issue relates to the Civil Service. To have civil servants spending a lot of time preparing for something and spending the last two or three months preparing to hand over to someone else is a lunatic way of operating a serious institution. It is all the more lunatic when the Six expand to the Twelve and even the Thirteen.
I want to raise two technical points relating to the Select Committee on European legislation. First, I asked a question of the staff of that Committee about


the complicated issue of the road haulage quota arrangements. Mr. Frank Clark tells me:
So far as I can find out this has not yet been considered in any detail. It seems likely that what will in fact happen will be that the total quota will be increased to accommodate Greece in the same way as when the UK joined the Community but this has still to be negotiated.
These road haulage quota arrangements have given enough trouble at this end of the Community. Heaven knows what kind of trouble will arise at the other end, because the Greeks seem to operate a very different system. When one actually tackles them about this, there is complete vagueness. When the Greek Government discover that they will have to accede to this kind of regulation, they may have many of the troubles that we have had here.
Let us look, for instance, at the road haulage regulations. I do not know whether there is anyone on the Front Bench who has knowledge of this subject, but if not I would be willing to accept a letter. When I am told that all these matters are still to be negotiated, it seems to me that there are many vital matters that have been left rather vague. I put it in a general sense: are there many outstanding matters that are still vague?
Finally, I asked whether the instrument regarding Commission participation in the United Nations Organisation discussions would be relevant, and Mr. P. D. Brittain, of the staff, went into it on my behalf. He wrote to me:
In my view, the immediate question whether a Commission competence in a limited field (the Intergovernmental Working Party of Experts in International Standards of Accounting and Reporting) would have a very narrow application to the Greek situation. In the long term, Greece will inherit the Community legislation on Company Law that could be affected by the Commission proposal.
In the meantime, she is, presumably, free to be a candidate in her own right for membership of the Working Group concerned.
On the whole question of company law I ask again, do the Greek companies, not least the Greek shipping companies, really understand and comprehend precisely what they are letting themselves in for? If the Minister tells me that all this has been gone into in great detail in the negotiations, that all the spadework has been

done by Mr. Natali and his colleagues, I will accept it. But I think it is worth asking from the Opposition Benches how much outstanding business remains in these negotiations.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: . I gather that the Opposition Front Bench will not be voting on this clause. Though the Opposition may reasonably wish to express criticism of the EEC, as the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has done, and invite explanations and point out various difficulties that will arise, I profoundly hope that, having reflected on the matters, they will not press to a vote the new clause to be debated later or vote against clause 1.
I say that because this country is the first to pass legislation to approve the accession of Greece as a new member of the Community. I know full well that His Excellency the Greek Ambassador and Greek Ministers and Members of Parliament recognise that what we are discussing is not intended to be an insult to or an attack upon Greece. It may well be argued that the Greeks are—as, indeed, they are—a highly sophisticated nation with an undoubtedly deep understanding of politics. But in the light of yesterday's debate, which happily ended with the result that the Greek external services of the BBC will continue, the words that we express tonight will be of much greater interest in Greece than they will be here. Every word that we say on this matter tonight will reach the Greeks.
The message that I want to go out from the House of Commons—it undoubtedly goes out from the whole Conservative Party and the Government—is that we are the first country to seek to secure that the accession of Greece meets with the approbation of the British people. I should like to be able to say that for Britain as a whole.
I know there are many on the Opposition Back Benches who share the view that I have expressed—some have served with me in the British-Greek parliamentary group. Many of them have been to Greece and recognise the immeasurably improved diplomatic and economic relations that have developed in recent years between Britain and Greece since Mr. Karamanlis again became Prime Minister. At that time, relations between the two countries were absolutely appalling.


It was at the height of our difficulties with Cyprus.
5.45 pm
At that time, there was intense criticism of the approach of the then Labour Government and their policies in relation to Greece and Turkey. All that was overhauled. As a result of the different approach of the leaders of the Labour Party in recent years, we achieved a united approach in our attitude to Greece, both in terms of trade and in diplomacy generally. As a consequence, relations have much improved.
If this matter is carried to a Division and the Labour Opposition vote against the Bill, their action is bound to be misunderstood by the people of Greece. I ask the Labour Party not to do that. I know that there are many on the Opposition Benches who say that there should not be a vote tonight on anything that could in any way reflect upon the accession of Greece.
It is true that there is a general view among many hon. Members of the House, and among many people in the country, that there should not be the burden of additional expenditure for the EEC. An amendment was tabled that has not been called. I would have argued that that amendment was out of order anyway, but it sought to argue that there should be no increase in the total budget of the Community as a result of the accession of the Hellenic Republic. Whether the amendment is out of order or not, it is a fact of life that we, as Members of the House, cannot possibly control the budget of the EEC or influence whether that budget may, for a variety of reasons, be increased.
One thing that is fairly obvious is that if one, two, or, possibly, three other nations join the EEC it is inevitable that the budget must increase to take account of the advantages that those countries may or may not enjoy.

The Chairman: Order. In view of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I hope that he will not address himself to an amendment that he thinks is out of order and that I have not selected.

Mr. Rees-Davies: As I pointed out, Mr. Weatherill, it is both out of order and has not been selected. What I am

pointing out is that the raison d'être for the present debate is that there are those who do not share my approach, which is pro-Community, and who spend all their time at present attacking the EEC budget on ally pretext. One of the ways to attack the budget is to say that the accession of a new nation to the Community means an inevitable increase in the budget. I was venturing to point out that that is one of the arguments that led to an unselected amendment to which I made reference only en passant.
The reality of the situation is that Greece must understand that there are those who are opposed to the entry of Greece into the EEC. Indeed, Mr. Papandreou is opposed to it. For that reason I am speaking for the benefit of the people of Greece as opposed to those in Great Britain. There are those who are still bitterly opposed to Great Britain's remaining one of the EEC partners. All those people are entitled to criticise and to say "Well, we are paying far too much money to the EEC." Our own Prime Minister has made it plain that that is the view that the Government take, as, indeed, do many Members throughout the House.
That having been said, I do not think that it is either appropriate or fair to try to build on the suggestion that Greece, therefore, should not become a member because that might increase the overall cost.
We should seek to give the maximum possible support to this measure. We should strongly urge those in the Labour Party who do not wish in any way to reduce the opportunities of Greece to join in as one of our partners to give this measure their welcome and to make plain, in anything that they say from now on, that it is not intended to reflect upon Greek entry. We should also make it abundantly clear that the House of Commons has no intention whatever of voting against the Third Reading or expressing a view on something to which neither the Left nor the Right of the Labour Party, nor the whole of the Conservative Benches, has hitherto been opposed. I hope that the measure will pass with our warmest support to our friends and colleagues.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I fully support the substance of


the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) that the accession of Greece and the two Iberian countries to the Community will have the most significant effects for us in Britain and for the Community. However, I follow what the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) said—that it would be quite wrong if any decision were to be made here to vote against the accession for quite extraneous reasons. I am confident that there will be broad all-party support for the accession of Greece to the Community. Indeed, I could not support new clause 1 or new clause 2, for reasons that I shall outline, although basically I follow the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe.
My guiding principle is that we either accept the fact of Greek accession or we do not. Whatever the arguments for and against that accession—they have been ventilated in previous debates in this Chamber—we have to come to terms with the fact that we are beyond the point of no return and that Greece will become a member of the Community. If we accept that, we must do so, and be seen to do so in Greece and elsewhere, wholeheartedly and without reserve, in no way giving the impression that Greece will be put under greater scrutiny than any existing member of the Community or that she might be regarded in any way as other than a full member of the Community.
I say in passing that my view is that Britain as a whole has not taken on board the full implications of enlargement, including the accession of Greece, and much will be against our own economic interests. Indeed, it could plausibly be argued that the accession of Greece will have a destabilising effect on Greece itself, because of the considerable internal opposition to accession from PASOK, and it could have a destabilising effect on the eastern Mediterranean because of relationships with Turkey.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said, the accession will probably have major effects which have not yet been fully thought through by this country or the Community on the machinery of the Community. I shall not detail the technical points that my hon. Friend made relating to language, interpretation and the Com

missioners. However, it will clearly be important also for the budget. We know that there will be a major crisis in the budget in the near future, in any event. If it is unlikely that, say, the proportion of the budget devoted to regional aids will be increased, that, on any basis of fairness, must mean that less cash will be available for disadvantaged areas in Britain when one compares their economic health with that of disadvantaged areas of Greece.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian also set out the possibility, given this new opening to the south, of the development of olive oil lakes, as we have had with wine lakes, and the effects on United Kingdom industries such as shipbuilding and textiles. All those things, however important, are in this sense things of the past. They have been overridden because of the Government's view—and the Labour Party's view when in Opposition—that the accession of Greece must be accepted and welcomed for political reasons.
We know that a different EEC will emerge from enlargement. The vision of the founding fathers of the EEC, Jean Monet and his colleagues, an ever-closer union of the European peoples, will become that much less attainable as a result of the accession of these countries, whose economies are less powerful than our own. They will add further destabilising factors to Community development. But that development in itself, the fact of cohesion being much less attainable, will be welcomed by many people in Britain as being the sort of view of the Community that they had in any event and that is being brought about now as a result of these developments.
I return to the question whether we should have an audit of the effect on Britain of the accession of Greece, and no doubt similar demands in respect of Spain and Portugal. This would be to treat Greece differently. In any event, the information is available from Community sources. There is no case for treating Greece separately, as if it were an unwelcome addition to the Community. Greece will not be a second-class member; it will be a full member, as we are. To treat Greece in any other way would be seen symbolically by our friends in Greece as a most unfriendly act.
I certainly would not support either of the new clauses. I add my voice to those who, in spite of all the difficulties and the adverse economic consequences that we shall have to face, welcome Greece as a full member of the Community.

Sir Bernard Braine: I endorse the views expressed so clearly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). I woud not wish to criticise those who have tabled the amendment. It is the business of Parliament to probe and to extract information from the Executive. Of course, we all know—

The Chairman: Order. The amendment is not selected.

Sir B. Braine: I was referring to the amendment in passing, Mr. Weatherill, but I take it that I am in order in addressing myself to the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: But not to the amendment. Perhaps the hon. Member was not present at the start of the debate. The debate is on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Amendment No. 1 was not selected.

Sir B. Braine: But surely, Mr. Weatherill, it is in order for me to say, in regard to the shape of the debate as a whole—whether or not amendments have been selected—that I do not wish in any way to criticise any hon. Members for tabling amendments which seek to extract information from the Executive.
I wanted to say that it would be extremely unfortunate if it were thought anywhere in Europe—and especially in Greece—that the debate reflects opposition to Greece's joining the Community. It would also be untrue.
6 pm
There are profound differences on some matters between the two sides of the Committee, but one of the happiest features recently in our relations with Greece has been the tremendous support given by hon. Members of all parties to the British-Greek group since the restoration of democracy in Greece. That group has endeavoured to establish close, cordial and developing relations between

the two Parliaments and peoples, and Labour Members as well as Conservative Members have been conspicuous in that work. In earlier times, Mr. Weatherill, you showed deep interest in our work and can testify to what I say. It was no surprise, therefore, that almost 200 hon. Members, drawn from all parties, signed the early-day motion warmly welcoming the decision of the Greek Parliament to apply for membership.
I like to think that it is due to the efforts on both sides of the House of Commons that the Government have had second thoughts about cutting out the Greek language services of the BBC. In Greece there is immense interest in what is happening in this country and great warmth of feeling towards us. It would be a sad day if, as a result of the shape of this debate, the impression were given that there is any body of opinion in the British House of Commons hostile to Greek membership of the Community.
I say at once that I have sympathy with the view that there should be an annual appraisal of the effects of the Community budget, but the hon. Member for Swansea, East put the matter in clear perspective. Why pick on Greece? There is a financial crisis in the European Community, but that is no argument against Greek accession. I venture to think that the sooner we can weld together the democratic countries of Western Europe in close unity of function and purpose, the sooner we shall have institutions that reflect the needs and aspirations of its democratic peoples. The fact that there is an immediate financial crisis has no bearing on Greek accession.
I take the broader view. It was always sad that from the beginning our vision of Europe was limited. All the democratic countries of Western Europe should be together in the modern world, and I warmly welcome the Bill, which sets the seal of final approval by the British Parliament on Greek membership.
I hope that no message will go out from the House of Commons by word or vote which suggests to people in Greece, who are anxiously watching what we may say and decide, that there is any feeling of reservation about Greek membership. I believe that I speak for the vast majority


of hon. Members in saying that, despite the budgetary difficulties which concern every member of the Community, the accession of Greece is a step forward. A Europe without Greece is unthinkable. We owe so much to the contribution of Greek culture to Western civilisation. I hope that the message will go out tonight that Parliament warmly welcomes the accession of Greece.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I have strong reservations about the accession of Greece. However, the accession of Greece, Spain and Portugal will have the beneficial effect of bringing the Cornmunity to a point where it will virtually break up, so I shall not express my opposition.
These glowing references to the Community are far from the truth. The economic ideal of the Community is free movement of labour and capital and not of working together, and that enables the evils of competition to decide which countries shall have which industry by driving the weaker ones out of existence.
Greece has a large textile industry. We want to work with countries throughout the world, but, as we constantly emphasise, the world does not end at the boundaries of the Common Market. We should go outside. The Common Market is comprised of nine countries, and there are over 30 in Europe. We want to work with them all.
I have reservations about clause 1 standing part of the Bill—and it forms the main part of it. I am particularly concerned about the effect of Greece's accession on the textile industry. I hope that the Commission will apply the multifibre arrangement and any transitional arrangements with greater vigour than hitherto because it has been singularly inert. The previous Labour Government spent much time and effort renegotiating the MFA in the hope that the EEC would apply it vigorously, as was indicated.
The British Textile Confederation circulated a draft letter to all hon. Members with textile constituencies. It said:
Imports from the Mediterranean countries continue to be the weakest area of the EEC's textile policy, despite some limitations resulting from industry pressure. Restraint agreements have now been reached with Malta and Cyprus—but at the highest level of penetration yet achieved, and in breach of the global ceilings for the most sensitive products.

Greece and Spain have authorised the export to the UK market of larger quantities than the limits to which they had agreed.
If we approve the Bill, and if the clause stands part, will there be transitional arrangements to protect the United Kingdom textile industry; or will Greece be allowed immediate free movement of goods, to the enormous detriment of the British textile industry?
The British Textile Confederation gives a list of sensitive items. In category 3.2 we find woven pile fabrics, the country of origin of which is Greece. The quota ceiling for 1979 was 259 tonnes. Yet the imports between January and July totalled 512 tonnes—almost double the trigger level agreed by the EEC. That is not good enough.
When we talk in glowing terms of countries working together, we should recognise that a breach of international obligations of that sort puts people on the dole and has catastrophic consequences for industrial relations. We must be clear that arrangements of this sort must be undertaken properly. The EEC Commission must be more vigorous in the application of transitional arrangements.
In a research brief on the European Commission's general guidelines for a textile and clothing industry policy, the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers points out on page 12:
We feel that this move shows the lack of sincerity in the Commission's broad statement seeing the textile industry as essential to the Community, unless they intend it (the textile industry) to belong to the anticipated new member states such as Greece, Spain and Portugal. This possibility is not as remote as it may first appear. Only recently Greece has agreed to restrictions on its free movement of labour and agricultural goods on its accession in 1981. It would indeed be strange if it had nothing in exchange, and as its largest manufacturing industry is textiles, transitional provisions should also be agreed. But this does not seem to carry the political weight as does the prospect of Greek workers flooding into West Germany.
Therefore, West Germany has already made provision for the accession of Greece. I suspect that we have not. I suspect that in the usual way we shall obey the rules while every other country bends them to its own advantage.
The significance of this Bill is that it is not only sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is blind to the problems of industry, and always has been, but is also sponsored by Ministers


at the Departments of Trade and Industry, which means that they have set their seal on Greek accession. What else have they done about the products of Greece and the orderly marketing arrangements that they were talking about yesterday?
We do not want to see another Granada Television programme with stories from Greece rather like the one of 13 February 1979, which was entitled "The Shirt off our Backs". Statistics produced in that programme showed why 3,500 European clothing factories have shut in the last few years, throwing half a million people out of work. There must be some sort of parity of competition. That Granada programme talked about a woman called Jean Johnson, who has been a Stockport shirt machinist for 12 years. She is married, has three children, and earns £42 a week. In Hong Kong, 4,000 workers doing the same job get £27 a week each, while in Sri Lanka, Hema Pattirame, a girl working in a clothing factory leaves home at 4 am every day and gets back at 8 pm. She gets £2.50 a week—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must understand that what goes on in Sri Lanka does not have great relevance to a Bill dealing with Greek accession to the European Community.

Mr. Cryer: Then I shall try to point out the relevance, Mr. Weatherill. Having accepted that clause 1 should stand part of the Bill, we do not want to see future comparisons of that sort in a television programme which spotlights the differences in wages and working conditions between Greece and the United Kingdom when Greece has free circulation of textiles within the United Kingdom. Other hon. Members have pointed out that they wish to welcome Greece into the EEC without any inhibitions. I contend that, if that sort of programme is shown, it will cause deep resentment, contrary to the expressions of view that have been heard so far in the debate today. I am only sorry that the two new clauses were not incorporated in the Bill, because I feel that scrutiny of expenditure from the budget is important.
6.15 pm
Another important matter is the question of State aids. As it happens, textiles, footwear and clothing are the industries that have received most of the temporary employment subsidies. The

European Commissioners stopped the last Labour Government from carrying on with TES and thus preserving vital jobs in the textile industry. In my constituency of Keighley, 2,000 jobs were supported by TES. Therefore, if State aids are to be warped in any way by Greece becoming a member of the EEC, we should know about it now and get the information from the Minister who is to reply to the debate.
The textile industries are vulnerable. This is causing concern. We have a modern wool and textile industry in this country, brought about by the wool industry reorganisation scheme, which was introduced by the last Conservative Government and developed by the Labour Government. Yet mills are still closing. In the first few months of this year, 6,000 jobs have been lost in Yorkshire and Humberside alone because of the advent of cheap imports. Greece is causing further concern to the British Textile Confederation, the wool textile delegation and the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers, which deals with the wool and textile side.
In conclusion, I should point out that when the drum was being beaten for the referendum in 1975, when millions of pounds were being poured into a massive propaganda campaign, when the Eurofanatics, who were in a majority in the Cabinet of the then Government, failed deliberately to place any limit on expenditure, because that action benefited their side, the textile employers were saying that they wanted to get into the Common Market. It was a massive market in which they could do wonderfully well They would have a huge domestic market in which to sell their goods. The motor manufacturers and executives, with the exception of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), were the same. Now it has all blown up in our faces. We have a massive balance of payments deficit with the Common Market, and that will continue.
Mr. Tom Hibbert, the chairman of the wool textile delegation, has pointed out that the wool textile employers actually supported the Common Market and inserted advertisements and messages about "jobs for the boys" in the newspapers. That has a rather sour ring about it now. Now that the EEC is being enlarged by Greece's accession, the


message from Tom Hibbert is that the effect of the Common Market would appear to be so harmful that we should consider our position within it.
When this Bill is passed, the problems will not go away. We shall continue to hear concern expressed by the textile and other industries, and we shall not be able to exercise control over our own economy, investment, development and imports as long as we remain members of the EEC. By all means let clause 1 stand part of the Bill and let Greece and other countries come into the Community. This will help to erode this arrangement that is called the Common Market. Let us instead develop an arrangement whereby we meet equally as partners together, not only with other EEC countries but with those in the European Free Trade Area. Let us have a common negotiated trading arrangement. That is what the accession of Greece—and of Spain and Portugal—will ultimately mean.
The EEC will change as a result of the accession of Greece; and the supporters of the Bill know it. They are torn between two things. If they vote to keep Greece out of the Common Market, they will be denying what they call democratic rights—although there is not much democracy inside the EEC. Therefore, they are bound to accept the accession of Greece, but they know that the accession of countries with middle-range economies, such as Greece, will mean a radical change in the Common Market.
The accession of Greece will weaken and broaden the Community to a point where it will cease to be able to function as the political unit which the Eurofanatics on the Conservative Benches—and, alas, some Labour Members—would like to develop. We should keep the Common Market as a commercial trading organisation. I should like to see the Commission—with the Government prodding the Commission—make sure that Greece's accession does not bring dissension and grief because of the loss of jobs in the textile and other industries.
By all means, let clause 1 stand part of the Bill, but with the reservations that I have stated.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): It is natural that Members from all parts of the Committee should seek

an explanation of the Bill and of the whole question of Greek accession in the clause stand part debate. It is also right—I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) for putting the matter in its essential perspective—to consider the future relationship between Greece, the EEC and this country. Both my hon. Friends are well known in the House, and have been for years, for their work in developing friendship between Britain and Greece. I echo what they said.
If I catch the eye of the Chair on Third Reading, I should like to repeat succinctly the political reasons that led the Government to introduce the Bill. I should like now to concentrate on some of the points on which explanations are required.
It is natural that the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) should concentrate on the Community budget. That is a matter on which the whole House of Commons needs to be vigilant. It is a major issue here, in the country and in Europe.
There are two major aspects. The first is that of our own contribution, which has been discussed over and over again in the House. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will carry our case to Dublin. The second related major factor is the total imbalance between what is sensible and what is nonsensical in the present level of spending on agriculture. The proportion is far too high for common sense.
Incidentally, in the interest of historical accuracy, I tell the hon. Lady that she should not say that we on this side of the Committee discovered these absurd and expensive elements only after the election. I could, though it would be tedious, refer her to dozens of speeches made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and by myself, pointing out these absurdities. We feel that the previous Government were setting about correcting them in the wrong way. History will show which tactics are the most fruitful. That is an unending argument, and the hon. Lady should not distort the record before it is complete.
The imbalance of the CAP as a whole will not drift on. The policy will hit its


ceiling—we do not know exactly when—and when that happens it will compel a rethink of the policy.
Greek accession is a minor factor in the budgetary argument. I agree with my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that it would be wrong to give Greece the impression that we are laying the blame for present difficulties on Greek accession, or that we think that they would be aggravated by Greek accession. We estimate that the size of the agricultural budget will be increased by about 5 per cent. as a result of Greek accession. That is not a figure to be wholly ignored, but it is not a figure to be blown up as being responsible for the difficulties.
I should like to give a number of other up-to-date figures in advance of the discussion of new clause 1. They are slightly different from those given by the previous Government early last year. We estimate now that after all the transitional periods are complete Greece will be a net beneficiary of the Common Market to the extent of about £390 million a year. Under existing arrangements, that means that the British net contribution will be increased by about £65 million a year at the end of the transitional period. It is precisely these arrangements that we are seeking to change. We regard our proportion of the total as unfair.
I am giving figures under the existing arrangements. The cost will be less in earlier years, because the figures that I have given are for the years at the end of the transitional period. Obviously, in the earlier years Greece will be receiving less and paying less. For example, in the first year after accession the net cost to Britain will be between £5 million and £10 million.
I turn now to the point made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) about textiles. The philosophy that he expounded about Europe contained many contradictions. First, we had the familiar cry that the concept of the Community was too small and too narrow with nine countries posing as Europe. He then used that argument against enlarging it to 10, and will no doubt use it in time against enlarging the Community further. The hon. Gentleman might say that even then the Community is too narrow and that the whole world should be in the Community.
Yet the hon. Gentleman went on to make a familiar case—I thought he made his case powerfully—for the protection of the British textile industry against the whole world. We had a thorough debate on that matter yesterday, and I refer him to the robust speech by my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade about the balance which any British Government have to keep between the legitimate interests of the textile industry and the legitimate interests of the British consumer. That is a real balance, and the consumer is becoming more conscious of it.
I do not wish to go back over that ground, except to say that, as regards Greece, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will draw the attention of the bodies whose declarations he read out to article 130 of the Treaty. That article lists action which can be taken by Community countries in the event of their industries being disrupted by imports from Greece during the transitional period. The article contains as reasonable an undertaking as can be given at this stage, short of telling Greece that we are so concerned about our textile industry that we shall slam the door in her face and not let her in.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I welcome the entry of Greece, Portugal and Spain into the EEC. Their membership will make a qualitative change to the Community, because the EEC is no longer just a rich man's club. Does not the hon. Gentleman see a contradiction in what we are doing? We have the possibility of free movement of labour from such countries as Greece and yet we showed earlier today that we are scared to death of allowing in any more workers from the Indian sub-continent.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Member spoke earlier this afternoon after the statement of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on immigration, and he will no doubt raise the matter again. I do not wish to be drawn into that discussion, though it is pertinent, and the hon. Gentleman has made his point.
6.30 pm
Both the hon. Member for Keighley and the hon. Member for Crewe referred to State aids. Here again, there is some confusion in their philosophy. The main discussion about State aids during the


last Parliament resulted from the then Government's clinging to State aids. They said how wrong it was for the Commission to start undermining the marvellous process that we had in this country for sustaining jobs by State aids.
When we came into office, we found a whole series of rather excited arguments going on between the British Government and the Commission on these points. We are gradually and sensibly bringing those arguments to a close. Now we find that when it comes to Greece the hon. Lady is on the other side of the argument. She is now concerned to argue that it is very important that Greece should not be allowed the rights and privileges or the ability to have State aids, which Ministers in the last Government so closely embraced and so insisted on when it was on their side of the argument.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I must apologise if my inability to express myself in clear English is such that I did not make the hon. Gentleman understand. I have absolutely no objection to Greece's supporting those of her industries that are sensitive. Indeed, I wish that we had the same kind of protection. What I am worried about is that the Community is insisting that Greece should get rid of her existing supports. If nothing else, the hon. Gentleman must acquit me of being two-faced on this matter.

Mr. Hurd: Then I must refer solely to the hon. Member for Keighley. I thought that the hon. Lady was on the same point, but I now understand that she was on a contradictory point. The hon. Gentleman was certainly anxious that the Greeks might be able to subsidise their textile industry and create unfair competition for British jobs.

Mr. Cryer: I must enable the hon. Gentleman to grasp this point thoroughly. What I was saying was that the Commission should not expunge State aids from Greece in the same way as it forced us to get rid of temporary employment subsidy. What was valuable for this country should be permitted elsewhere in the Community.

Mr. Hurd: But it is not sensible to have a competition in State aids through the Community. It simply leads to extravagance after extravagance. It is a con

tinuing process, as each country feels compelled to match the State aids given by others. This is what has happened in practice. The philosophy of the Treaty in this matter is correct.
I am very interested in the Opposition's statement—I am sorry if I got it wrong originally—that they are now anxious that the Greeks should be able to subsidise their industries, including the textile industry, and that this right should not be impeded. It goes against the drift of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
As regards the provisions under the arrangements that we are now discussing for State aids, the Greeks on entering the Community will be subject to articles 92 and 93, which deal with State aids. Protocol No. 7 attached to the documents, which refers to the Greek Government's general industrial policy, says that their obligations under those articles will have to be weighed against the Community's endorsement of that policy.
That is an attempt in diplomatic language to state a balance, which I think on the whole the Committee would think reasonable, between the interests that the hon. Lady has just been talking about—the reasonable interests of a partly developing country such as Greece—and the Community's general concern not to allow a continuous auction of State aids, which, when exaggerated, could end in beggaring everybody.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who I know must leave shortly, asked a number of important and serious questions, as did the hon. Lady, about the Community's institutions and the effect on them of Greek membership.
The hon. Gentleman dealt first with the problem of the tower of Babel, the problem of the burden on the Community and the confusion inside it created by the proportion of its resources, its time and its business involved simply in translating from one language into another. He quoted a letter that he had received from my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) which represented as much as we can say on the matter at present.
I am sure that all hon. Members grasp the essential points. First, a Minister or a Member of Parliament of a member


State must be allowed to express himself in his own language. Secondly, a Greek farmer must have available in Greek the instruments of the Community that affect his livelihood. The hon. Gentleman did not dispute either of those points, but they add substantially to the problem of the tower of Babel.
Within those two clear needs, we should like to see some rationalisation, a commonsense approach to the question of how often there must be full deployment of all the languages. The problem is now being examined. The report of the Three Wise Men, including Mr. Dell, will be before the summit meeting in Dublin, but I doubt whether the Heads of Government will have a great deal of time at that meeting to go into it in detail. That is not because the problems are unimportant. I believe that on the whole they are extremely important, for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman. But there are other problems that fall into the same category: the number of Commissioners, the whole question of the Commission's structure and the parliamentary consequences of enlargement.
There is the Spierenburg report, which was commissioned by the Commission, in addition to the report of the Three Wise Men. I cannot enlarge on those reports. They are not before us now, and the Government have not received the latter report. Therefore, it is too early to comment on it.
I simply make one personal comment, as someone who has tried to follow these matters for three or four years, as has the hon. Gentleman. I agree with him about the need to go back to the drawing board. We should not assume that we must simply add on what seems to be the mathematically right number of extra people.
The enlargement enables us—it forces us—to look again at the structures and see whether they are sensible. Therefore, I hope and believe, on the basis of what I have read and heard on the subject, that this opportunity will be taken not simply to make purely automatic adjustments upwards but to look again at the underlying concepts and see whether we can streamline these matters and make them better.
Certainly, as the hon. Gentleman said, there is outstanding business. We have the Treaty of Accession before us, but there

is continuing business, as there is bound to be. Road haulage quotas are obvious examples. The whole system is being looked at again. It is not sensible to negotiate a quota for Greece when the whole system is being examined.
Another example is the relationship between Greece and the ACP countries. There is a whole series of consequential subjects that will take a considerable time to work out. Nobody needs to apologise for the fact that they are not yet cut and dried.
The hon. Lady referred to a very important point—the Copenhagen declaration and the whole question of human rights. We should be a little chary of telling other people how to run their countries. But it is fair to say that the previous Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, with the agreement of the then Opposition, took the lead in working out the Copenhagen declaration, which was that the existing and future members should be good practitioners of democracy. Article 3, paragraph 3, of the Treaty of Accession says that the new member—Greece in this case—will be bound by declarations adopted by common agreement within the Community.
That matter should not obscure the remarkable achievement of the Greeks in this area. They have extricated themselves, without a great deal of help from anybody else, from one form of totalitarian rule without falling into the other and opposite form. If there were no other factor, that would be a reason why the Committee should give to the Greek application not a sour or crabbed response but a warm and wholehearted response, by approving the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

OBLIGATION OF FOREIGN SECRETARY TO REPORT TO PARLIAMENT

'The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs shall lay before Parliament annually a report analysing the effect on the Community Budget of the accession of Greece to the European Economic Community.'.—[Mrs. Dunwoody.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take new clause 2—State aids in Community—
'Nothing in this Act shall be taken to invalidate the existing system of State aids within the Community.'.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is important that the House should be informed about what is going on in the Community. The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) said that we must ask not only the Greeks but others to account to the Community for their activities. In my speech on clause 1, I made it clear that we welcome the accession of Greece to the Community. However, that does not mean that we are satisfied with the internal machinery.
One way in which the Government could adapt their existing procedures and keep the House more fully informed would be to give a close analysis annually or biennially of the effect on the budget of the accession of a new member State. That would not be a discriminatory move against a new member State, but it is a proposal that we would have wished to see put into operation some time ago. Some hon. Members would like to see a change in our own treaty so that the House would have the right to look at individual decisions before they are taken. However, that proposal is not before us today and I should be ruled out of order if I pursued the matter.
The budget is obviously the kernel of the development. Long and erudite discussions on how we wish to see the Community proceeding do not matter if there is no money to meet existing commitments. We have known that for a long time. It has not been thrust von us at short notice. The Agriculture Commissioner has spelt out that fact time and again. That is why he introduced the co-responsibility levy, which, in real terms, he was forced to withdraw, and why he suggested changes in commodity agreements. The Commissioner also hoped that the Tory Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would not agree to any price increases in the last price review. He specifically hoped that Britain would hold a line on the budget and demand that there should

be no increases in the price of commodities in surplus.
The House never receives a proper account of the minutiae of the Community. That is understandable. Paper flows out of the Commission and the other institutions of the Community at the speed of light and it is difficult for hon. Members to follow all the details. Nevertheless, the practical result of that is that Ministers go to Brussels on our behalf, sometimes without even a discussion of the regulations or directives on which decisions are to be reached. They take the decisions and come back to this place to report on them. I believe that we are not fully informed. Yet we are being asked to pay a disproportionately high proportion of the budget.
6.45 pm
I welcome the stand that appears to be taken by the Government towards the imbalances. Nevertheless, if the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister returns from Dublin with egg on her face she will find it difficult to explain to the House why she was so convinced that the matter should be immediately put right and that the British taxpayer could no longer support the intolerable burden of our contribution to the Community. She will find it hard to explain why she has had to climb down when it comes to the crunch.
I hope that the Government will seriously consider accepting new clause 1. Indeed, they may take it as a pattern for our relationships with other countries in the new accession treaties. If the Government have the opportunity to say what they think is essential about the budget and what should be changed, I believe that they would receive much more support from all parts of the House. Any budget that spends 80 per cent. on agriculture and 20 per cent. on everything else is so manifestly unbalanced that it cannot conceivably continue as it is.
Agriculture welded the Community together, but I believe that agriculture will blow it disastrously apart. The political implications of the refusal of political will in the Community are great. There has been no real indication of a change of mind. It is all very well for us to say that our colleagues on the Continent have great sympathy with us and


are aware of our difficulties. They will not accept a change in the make-up of the budget, because they know that if we pay less someone else must pay more. If Britain had taken a higher proportion of the regional and social funds, that would have been one way out. That proposal was blocked off by Conservative Members' refusal to allow any increase in the regional and social funds.
For four years I had the grand title of vice-president of the Social Affairs Committee in the European Assembly. I watched the tiny sum of money that was so desperately needed to help employment, youth retraining, and the position of women being snarled up in the machinery of elephantine incompetence. I learned that there was little likelihood that the Community, by using the social and regional funds, would be able to change the imbalance between rich and poor regions.
We should take care that we do not start to talk about the Community of the centre and the Community of the periphery. Greece is in real danger of joining us in an unenviable position—being part of the Community of the periphery. The investment, jobs and money go to the centre and those who are on the fringes are badly treated.
I hope that the Government will resolve that there must be changes in the budget. All the good Tory Europeans have failed to put forward one good practical alternative to the existing funding arrangements. The Minister of State said that the Government do not know when we will run out of money. We do know that it will be in 18 months' time—at the latest. That will come at a time when some other European States will be facing their electorate. When European politicians believe that their votes will be affected, they are hardly likely to agree to a vast change in the pattern of funding which will take money away from their electorate.
The agriculture policy is manifestly untenable. Not only is it not in the interests of the Eupropean consumer but it is not in the interests of the small European farmer. Large farmers have done well out of it, but many small European farmers have not received any real benefit from the CAP. If the money runs out and no political decisions have been

taken, there is a real danger that the Community will blow itself apart. What is put in its place may be even more damaging than the existing funding of the Community, though that seems unlikely to many of us.
Why does the Minister not say that the Government wish that they had thought of the idea and that since the Opposition have been kind enough to put it forward they will accept it? They could explain to the House in detail the budgetary implications of what is happening in the Community. When we reach the brave new world in which Britain will, at long last, pay a great deal less and the French and the Germans will pay a great deal more, the Government will be able to explain in considerable detail how the funding is going and why countries such as Greece will find it difficult to get the transfer of resources that they will need for their structural changes.
The Minister did not mention the point that I stressed earlier, namely, that under the guarantee fund Greece will have considerable difficulty in getting the transfer of resources that it will need to bring its agriculture up to even a reasonable standard.
We are giving the Minister a marvellous opportunity. He is basically a gracious gentleman and he can accept the opportunity with grace. Instead of suggesting that we are distorting the picture, the hon. Gentleman can remedy a previous mistake and agree that the House should be given a great deal of information, more opportunities to debate that information, and an annual report making clear what changes are needed in the budgetary arrangements of the Community.

Mr. Cryer: I support the new clause, and I am sure that the Government, with their new attitude towards Common Market expenditure, will welcome it. I may not be here for the Minister's reply, because I have to attend a meeting at 7 o'clock. I hope that the Minister will forgive me.
Since the Government are saying, as they were not before the general election, that Community expenditure and our contribution are out of hand, I am sure that they will accept the new clause as an element of accountability to this Parliament—a development that has not so far been


noticeable as a consequence of our membership of the Common Market.
When the Labour Government were in power, the then Leader of the Opposition said that we were being too abrasive in our attitude towards the Common Market, because we were saying that £1 billion a year was too much. Since, according to all sorts of non-attributable briefings and statements made hither and thither, the Prime Minister has developed an abrasive attitude herself about what she intends to do at the Dublin summit, the rather gentle new clause, which sets out in such a succinct and reasonable way how the expenditure relating to the accession of Greece should be accountable to this Parliament, should be acceptable to the Government. It will enable them to express the view that our relationship with the Community should be accountable to the House.
We see our powers dribbling away to the Common Market and the decisions of Commissioners becoming increasingly important. We are told that we cannot take certain action without the approval of the Commissioners. Civil servants, particularly in the Department of Trade, which is staffed virtually from top to bottom with dedicated Euro-fanatics, tell Ministers that they cannot take certain actions because they will offend the Common Market. I have no knowledge of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but I have no doubt that the process is repeated there.
The new clause will help in a minor way to establish a relationship in which there is some degree of accountability to the House, so that we may debate the effects of Greek accession on the EEC budget. It is not unreasonable to suggest that elected hon. Members should have an opportunity to debate the real issues of the Common Market, the application of funds and the distortion, beneficial effect or whatever that the accession of Greece will have on the Community budget.
The most important and all-embracing topic of discussion at present is the massive amounts of money being poured away in the EEC. We are contributing a significant proportion of that money. Why should there not be some degree of accountability to us?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Members for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) and Keighley (Mr. Cryer) have reasonably used the new clause as a peg on which to hang another discussion of the general problem of the European budget. It was a little puzzling to listen to them, since they gave the impression that the House of Commons had no opportunity to discuss EEC matters. In fact, they have both taken a prominent part in our elaborate procedures for discussing such matters. We have a Scrutiny Committee to enable us to have those discussions.
Over the years, I concluded that what was wrong was not so much the procedures, the legal situation or even the attitude of Governments, but that the debates in the House were usually rather drab and scanty and did not reflect the importance of the issues under discussion.
The EEC budget is a classic example. The hon. Member for Crewe gave the impression that the House had had no opportunity to discuss the budget. For several years, we have had a substantial debate in the House on the EEC budget, as a result of recommendations of the Scrutiny Committee. The first two such debates were dreary and I came away almost in despair because the Treasury Minister dealt simply with the dry sticks of the matter and did not encourage the House to launch into wider issues.
This year there was a change and a substantial and rather good debate on the budget. The opportunity exists and was used properly this year. Since we have a lively Opposition on this matter, I am sure that such debates will be important and influential in the history of the House and will match the importance of the subject.
It is not necessary to smuggle a new clause into an accession Bill for one new member of the EEC to secure proper consideration of the general matters that the hon. Lady discussed. The hon. Lady puts forward the new clause for reasons concerned with our position in relation to the European budget. We understand the reasons here. However, it would be widely misunderstood in Greece if we attempted to put a statutory obligation on our Government in respect of Greece alone—it has never happened before. The only explanation that would occur to our Greek friends is that there is some special


reason, suspicion or doubt about Greek accession and that we were attributing to that accession some of the major problems facing us in the EEC budget. That would be taken amiss in Greece.

7 pm

Mr. Rees-Davies: In order to emphasise what my hon. Friend has rightly said, may I point out that we are the first country to move for Greece to become a member? When the matter passes to all the other member States, they will observe that the British have picked out Greece for this specific provision, which would then have to be discussed by all the other member States in their respective Parliaments.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. and learned Friend is quite right. That may well be a consequence.
The hon. Member for Crewe and the Opposition are right in pressing for the fullest possible information on this as on other Community matters. Earlier I gave the up-to-date figures for the financial effects of Greek membership, particularly upon ourselves. I am quite willing to undertake that from time to time—maybe once a year, as was suggested—we shall make available to the House in what seems to be the most convenient form figures to show the effect of Greek membership. We are perfectly prepared to find a way of doing that. It should not be difficult, as it has not proved difficult today. I ask the hon. Lady, however, not to impose a statutory obligation which could lead to a good deal of difficulty of a kind that I am sure that she is not seeking to create.

Question put and negatived.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As we come towards the end of the discussion, it is right that, on behalf of the Government, I should emphasise the warm welcome which we and our predecessors in the last Government have given throughout to the Greek application. Of course, as the debate has again illustrated, the application creates complications and problems for the Greeks, for ourselves and for our partners. But we should not let the complications disguise the fact that the Greeks are paying

Europe the compliment of accepting that the European Community is now the focus of European co-operation.
Quite naturally, we are so absorbed in our own criticisms of the way in which the Community works that we sometimes forget that to those outside looking in, the Community, with all its failures, represents the most hopeful form of co-operation that Europe has ever achieved. One proof of that is the application and decision by Greece to join. Having thrown off one kind of totalitarian rule without falling into the grasp of another, Greece's record of democratic achievement is such that it has a very powerful argument to put to Members of this House, given our concern for democracy.
It is not open for us to say that Greece is not a European country. I do not think that anyone has ever ventured to make that remark. I do not think either that it is open for us to say that we in the Community are in such a muddle over skimmed milk, butter, wine and lamb that we propose to shut the door in the face of Greece until we have sorted it all out, whatever the consequences for them.
We must take a larger view than that, and both major parties in this country have taken that larger view. We accept that there is a good deal of work still to be done. There are a good many important matters of an institutional and economic nature still to be resolved. However, at the moment that Greece joins the Community one would have to be lacking in historical imagination not to regard that as a splendid step forward in the history of Europe.

Mrs. Dunwoody: On behalf of the Opposition I have the greatest pleasure in welcoming the accession of Greece to the Community. Most of those words that we hold most dear in the English language, including "democracy" and even "politics" itself, basically come from the Greek language. The reason why many of us still enjoy what is lightly called the advantage of a classical education is that it has always been firmly believed in this country that Greece, with its great cultural heritage and its great dramatic and economic history, has a great deal to offer us and the Community


as a whole. We have always believed that it would certainly be to the advantage of the Community that Greece should join.
However, the questions that we have raised today have, I hope, explored some of the difficulties that we envisage for the British Parliament in a larger Community and have put on record some of the difficulties that we frankly expect to face Greece after its accession. We do not believe that all will be sweetness and light, and there may even be occasions when—I know that this will surprise the Minister of State—we may not envisage the Community as the be-all and end-all of the future.
Nevertheless, we shall extend the very warm hand of friendship to the Greek people when they join us. This House has a long history of welcoming democratic States and helping them to maintain that democracy. We hope that their future in the Community will be a happy and prosperous one, and we know that the Greek people will understand that they can always rely on us for support in their democratic future and ideals.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I was delighted to hear the speech by the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody). I thank her and Labour Members who obviously had collectively to consider whether they would divide the Committee on the amendments which they had tabled for deciding, in their sound common sense, not to do so.
I see on the Labour Benches the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson), who has long been associated with the Greek parliamentary group. I am sure that he will echo the view that I have expressed.
I believe that when we pass the Bill tonight it will be regarded in Greece as a moment of some importance. Ours is the first country to grant and approve its accession. Others will follow, and it is right that with our joint heritage with Greece, Britain should have been the first mover in this matter.
These developments are of great importance, because Greece has been through an exceptionally difficult period in the last 30 or 40 years. There has

been the closest liaison between Greece and certain great Members of this House and another place, whose memories are always treasured in Greece. I refer, for example, to Lord Jellicoe and the immeasurable and brilliant way in which he supported Greece in the war. I refer to Monty Woodhouse, a Member of this House for many years, who was a great friend of Greece and was of immeasurable assistance to it in the war. There are others. It is that link which provides a great political connection and a great link of friendship in times of war.
Greece had a civil war. Those who have been through a civil war realise that it is perhaps worse than any other form of war in terms of tearing person from person. Thereafter the Greeks suffered a great indignity, the period of the generals' dictatorship. It says much for them that they survived, threw off the yoke of dictatorship and subsequently created a successful and improving country. They are improving their quality of life, method of civilisation, and industrial production. They are now almost the world leaders of the tourist industry. I hope that as a result of their success in that area they will contribute greatly, in many ways, to the EEC.
Of course the Greeks have grave problems. Their country is poor. Their small population occupies a large area of land. They have considerable problems with agriculture and the exports that they can generate. Therefore, the deficit must largely be made up by tourism. Both the Greeks and ourselves recognise that we can follow the road of European civilisation. It is not only the money; we look forward to an improvement in the life of our civilised society.
For political reasons and for the sake of our associations with Greece, we believe that we are doing a good night's work when we pass the Bill. It will be of benefit to Greece and Britain. It will bring people of commanding thought to assist us gradually to conquer the problems of Europe, so that ultimately we shall see the light of an improved future.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Neville Sandelson: I do not wish to take up more than a minute or so as almost everything that I would wish to say has been said already, not only by the hon. and learned


Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) but by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody), who spoke on behalf of the Opposition. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the warm way in which she expressed the feeling of the Opposition about the accession of Greece to the European Community.
There are many outstanding issues between the Government, the Opposition and the Community. It is important for the nation that they should be sorted out. We hope that they will be. We are all at one on that. However, the fact remains that the Community holds out the greatest hope for Western order and civilisation and the defence of Western values against those people in Europe and elsewhere, but primarily in Eastern Europe, who now threaten the values to which I allude.
For those reasons, especially for political reasons, the accession of Greece is to be welcomed by all hon. Members. The accession of Greece will add enormously to the strength of the Community in different ways, not detract from it. There will be a new atmosphere of deepening friendship between ourselves and Greece, to our mutual advantage.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. William Wilson: I was a soldier in the Greek Army 34 years ago. Understandably, at that time I came to have a great affection for things Greek and Greece. In the humble capacity in which I served, I never expected that the day would come when, in this House, I should welcome Greece as a member of a European community. I hope that my support tonight may be of more use to Greece than were my services as a soldier.
It is good to have Greece with us. The Greek soldiers used to say to me: "There was a time in 1940 and 1941 when it was just you and us alone." They were right. I hope that the combination now being set up will be as successful as the co-operation in more difficult days.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

SHIPBUILDING BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. RICHARD CRAWSHAW in the chair]

Clause 1

BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS: LIMIT ON BORROWING ETC.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Dr. John Cunningham: I begin by declaring an interest. I am a sponsored member of the General and Municipal Workers Union, which represents a large number of men who work in the shipbuilding industry. It is important to put that on record.
I intended to welcome what the Minister had to say. However, as he did not say anything, I may move on quickly.
I give a general welcome to the intention of clause 1. It is an important provision. However, the Opposition have a number of questions about what is intended in raising the limits imposed by section 11 of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 in relation to the finances of British Shipbuilders. We welcome the recognition of the need to do that and the Government's apparent commitment, on this occasion at least, to use public money. We wish that that commitment could be more widespread. The Opposition would have taken similar action if we had been in power. In that sense, we are satisfied with the provisions of Clause 1.
It is in the national interest to have an effective industrial capability in merchant shipbuilding, defence shipbuilding, marine engines and our oil industry requirements. However, the financial provisions relate to the two-year time scale that the Government set for the industry.
Are the new limits sufficient? Is the provision large enough in view of the situation obtaining in the shipbuilding industry? Perhaps, subsidiary to those questions, I may put a few more detailed points to the Minister. The strategy of British Shipbuilders is to maintain a capacity of about 400,000 to 450,000 tons


in merchant shipbuilding. The orders situation leads us to conclude that that may well be difficult. The Minister of State made that point before. We understand it. The berth programme of British Shipbuilders is serious. There is a need for much more vigorous Government action on orders. If action is forthcoming, as we urge, will the limits set in the Bill be sufficient to enable British Shipbuilders to fulfil extra orders?
I recall the action taken by the previous Administration on the Polish deal. That deal was much decried, at the time, by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen now in Government. However, not only was it useful to British Shipbuilders but it met with the approbation of the Public Accounts Committee.
The berth programme prompts us to ask whether the financial provisions are sufficient because the situations on the Clyde, the Tyne, the Wear, the Tees and Merseyside are urgent. The second question of detail arises because of the lowering of support for the industry as a result of the reduced intervention fund. The Government have made much of their role in this matter, but the intervention fund is now a failure. In no way does it match up to the real value of previous provisions, nor does it match up to what British Shipbuilders demanded. The level of support has gone down to 25 per cent. The attitude of British Shipbuilders was that the previous rate of 30 per cent. should be abolished and that there should be no support element. This lower level, however, will have an effect on the financing of the industry.
Much has been said of the need for a scrap-and-build programme. We have not seen any progress in the provision of such a programme by the Government. We regret that. It is an important matter. If a scrap-and-build programme were agreed—as we urge that it should be soon—it would expose the need for additional finance for British Shipbuilders. I refer the Minister to the document adopted by the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. The confederation recently discussed the general situation and in particular it argued in favour of the building of a much higher proportion of the United Kingdom tonnage in British yards.
It also argued for an early agreement on, and implementation of, a scrap-and-build policy, advance public sector orders and further defence orders. We understand that defence expenditure is to be increased, and perhaps the Minister will take on board the fact that some of that money should go to shipbuilding. The document also discusses the enforcement of the issue of segregated ballast tanks, the accelerated diversification of products and the installation of inert gas systems where necessary. These are proposals which could bring much-needed work to the yards but they require extra financial provision.
Are the Government really fighting for orders for the yards? We have not seen much evidence of great conviction in that respect. We would welcome more vigorous action because that would have an impact on the ability of the industry to finance itself within the provisions set out in clause 1 of the Bill.
Apart from the arguments which relate specifically to British Shipbuilders, there is also the question of the effect of inflation on the financial provisions. Inflation is rising rapidly and likely to go on rising and we understand that there is the likelihood of an increase in minimum lending rate which would affect the industry in many ways. Wages will have to be taken into account. It is against this inflationary background that we question the limits of the provisions. Capital investment proposals for the high technology and engineering sectors of British Shipbuilders prompt us to ask whether the limits set out in the clause are sufficient to meet the urgent and expanding needs of the industry.
The Minister of State was in doubt about these limits when he introduced the Bill on Second Reading on 1 November. He said that he hoped that there would be sufficient provision. I do not know what the Minister's hon. Friends would think if he had to come back to the House on a subsequent occasion to ask for increased provision. If he did, we would not hesitate to support him, though we think it is better to get the matter clarified now.
On industrial and employment grounds as well as on the grounds of national interest, British Shipbuilders should not be placed in difficulties. Because of the Minister's attitude to private


capital in the industry, yet another question arises under the heading of financial provision. He referred to this matter also on 1 November. What effect would changes in the industry have on the provisions? The Government should be more forthcoming about this when asking the Committee to agree to the Bill.
I understand that British Shipbuilders in its corporate plan states that the worldwide industry is experiencing the worst crisis in memory. British Shipbuilders are not the only ones in difficulties, though the plan describes the crisis as a matter of survival for the industry. We want the industry to survive and we want a greater level of support through the intervention fund. The fund is now smaller. We want to see more capital expenditure in yards throughout the United Kingdom. Offshore activities are also a key factor in planning and should be given national priority. That could lead to a significant increase in the provision of jobs, particularly in. Scotland, where they are badly needed.
There is a measure of agreement between management and unions about financial needs and about the need for aggressive action by the Government on public orders, defence measures and the intervention fund. Do the Government intend to change gear on these matters since they seem to be losing momentum? Against the background of the world shipbuilding recession, what does the Minister expect British Shipbuilders' trading loss to be in the next couple of years? That is a relevant question.
These issues are vital and urgent. We expect a detailed response from the Minister. My hon. Friends also have many questions about their constituencies.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: I am pleased with the progress of the Bill. I have followed closely the interests of the shipbuilding and ancillary industries and I cannot add much that is new to the argument. I had the pleasure, or misfortune, to sit through the long Committee stage of the Bill introduced by the previous Government. It is difficult to begin a new argument when one agrees basically with the general principle. One can always argue for a more generous injection from public funds, but at present the

money proposed is probably right in relation to the possible needs of the industry in the next three to four years.
I am sure that the Minister will persuade the executive board of British Shipbuilders to indicate how much of the money will be used for further research. That is important. We must keep in a healthy state the research establishment at Wallsend in my constituency. We must also ensure the well-being of the research establishment at Teddington, where a different type of work is done. Research must be maintained and the results must be incorporated in future since that could give us an advantage when we compete for orders in three or four years' time.
There is a slightly more optimistic mood on the Tyne following recent orders. They are welcome and we are also pleased about the orders obtained for the Birkenhead and Govan yards. I am sure that hon. Members who represent those constituencies will have more to say about that.
Naval contracts in the North-East have been completed on time and to the satisfaction of the contractor—the Admiralty. Perhaps the Admiralty will use its influence and encourage other contractors to use the North-East yards.
This is a difficult time for the shipbuilding and repair industries. Morale is low. Perhaps we shall be telling a different story this time next year. There may be some improvement. The longer that ships are at sea, the quicker their life expectancy diminishes. Inevitably, British ships will have to be replaced. If they are not, insurance premiums will increase and that will add to the operating costs. World shipowners will be looking for yards which can rebuild their fleets. The money provided in the Bill, if it is used wisely, will secure those future orders.
Hon. Members who represent shipbuilding constituencies have not been too critical of the Conservative Party. We could have rubbed our hands with glee at the possibility of the Minister having to do a partial about-turn on his party's philosophy. We have resisted that because the broad principle is generally accepted by both parties and by both the present and previous Governments. I hope that the Bill progresses merrily and speedily tonight and that it is placed on the statute hook as quickly as possible.

Mr. Don Dixon: I apologise for being absent at the close of the debate on 1 November. If I had known in advance that I would be absent, I would have mentioned it. I received an urgent telephone message about the serious illness of a close relative. I had to depart immediately for home. I was well up the M1 when the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), was making sarcastic remarks about my absence. I accept that he made those remarks in ignorance.
Clause 1 does not go far enough. My constituency relies a great deal on shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering. The town in which I was born and which I now represent was built on a tradition of steelmaking, shipbuilding and ship repairing. In the 1930s we went through the traumatic experience which Shotton and Corby are now facing.
In his more enlightened remarks on Second Reading the Minister said:
The main brunt of the contraction in recent years has been met in Merseyside and the North-East of England. Since mid-1977 over half of the 8,000 jobs lost in British Shipbuilders were lost in the North-East alone."—[Offical Report, 1 November 1979; Vol. 972, c. 1577.]
We all accept that. The male unemployment rate in my constituency is 16 per cent. The North-East relies on heavy engineering, shipbuilding and ship repairing. Any contraction in those industries adds to the already unacceptably high rate of unemployment.
A lack of recruitment in the industry amounts to the same as redundancies, because if wasted jobs are not replaced school leavers are not offered apprenticeships.
The shipbuilding industry is an important cornerstone of the industrial community. For economic, social and strategic reasons the industry should not be allowed to contract. The Tyne and Wear county council, to which I pay tribute, has done much to help the shipbuilding industry in the North-East. It held a conference, with other local authorities, in April this year to provide a national platform for discussion, among all the major sectors of the industry within the EEC, of the worldwide problems that face the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries. The conference carried the following resolution unanimously:

This conference affirms its belief that a vigorous national shipping and shipbuilding industry is essential to this country. The aim must be to ensure that the industry survives the current world recession and remains effective in the face of increasing competition so as to take advantage of the recovery expected in the 80s. To this end this conference calls on all sectors of the industry to unite their efforts in a new spirit of partnership, to build on the skills and expertise within the industry and, with the full participation of Government, together with our partners in the EEC, to find ways of increasing its overall strength.
At the same conference the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt), who was the chairman of the Conservative group on shipping and shipbuilding, said:
There must be no doubt as to the necessity to maintain a merchant shipbuilding capacity, as it cannot be left to others to supply the ships which carry Britain's and industrial Europe's seaborne trade.
We would all agree with that. If the Prime Minister's nightmare ever comes true and we have those hairy Russians positioned across the Channel, it is as important to have merchant shipping to carry the supplies as it is to have warships.
Despite the present deteriorating position of the industry—much of it beyond its control, caused mainly by subsidies and import controls in other countries—Britain is still the fourth largest shipbuilding nation in the world. It has always suffered from periodic demands, feasts and famines. The Geddes report in 1966 recognised that the private owners' failure to invest and adapt was one of the underlying causes of the industry not meeting the demand of the changing pattern of competition. Investment by private owners in British shipbuilding was pathetic. A survey carried out in the early 1970s showed that for every man employed in the industry the assets were £825. In West Germany the figure was over £1,000, in Italy it was £1,200, in Sweden it was £1,800 and in Japan it was £2,800.
The following years did not help the British worker and his need for proper tools. After that survey the investment for every man in the industry was £80 In West Germany it was £162, in Japan it was £409 and in Sweden it was £554 It is small wonder that the efficiency of the United Kingdom shipbuilding industry was well below that of our competitors
I referred in the debate on 1 November to platers' helpers pushing shell plates


about in the shipyards on wooden barrows. Those were the sort of tools given to workers to compete with the rest of the world. Because of their greed for profit and their lack of investment, the private owners have much to answer for with regard to the state of the industry today. If it had not been for nationalisation, it is doubtful whether we would be discussing the industry tonight.
Massive over-capacity in the industry internationally has given rise to intense competition for orders. Savage price cutting to levels well below the cost of production has resulted in bankruptcies among shipbuilders in many countries. That led to widespread financial intervention by Governments in the form of various subsidies, either as direct or indirect price support or in the form of soft credit packages to developing countries.
In the financial pages of The Guardian on 4 July a report stated:
Unofficially there is concern on the British front that competitors are playing dirty tricks. British shipbuilders will point to a ferry order they lost to a West German yard offering below cost prices. … The yard then went bust but they continued the work, sustained by the German Government—a device well within EEC rules".
The past 10 years have seen the cost of building ships double while the value of the ships has reduced by one-third.
I deal now with the conditions that prevailed in the shipbuilding industry not so many years ago. The chairman of British Shipbuilders has said:
We are breaking down old-fashioned and deep-rooted attitudes and substituting informed, active and hard headed involvement with participation".
Let us consider those old-fashioned and deep-rooted attitudes and understand how they came about. I speak from experience when I say that the British shipyard management was the most reactionary in British industry. I have heard debates in the House of Commons in which remarks by Conservative Members were purely academic. I doubt whether many of them have been nearer to a shipyard job and the conditions that workers face than lying in a deck chair on a liner cruising round the Mediterranean.
7.45 pm
Markets in the shipyards were abolished a few years prior to nationalisation. It was a tradition that started in the cattle markets. Early in the morning,

when it could be snowing, raining or hailing, we went to the gaffer's office and stood there for an hour or so until the gaffer came out—the rain was coming out of our laceholes—and said to some of us "You can start today, the rest of you go home". It is not so long since those conditions prevailed. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Evans) will remember those days.
I was a shop steward in a shipyard where men working with welders were holding lugs about an inch and a half from the flame of the welding rod. The sparks went down our sleeves and we finished up with septic sores on our hands, yet the management would not provide us with gloves. They said "Why not look round the dock bottom and find some welders' old gloves?" I had to go to a central conference in York in my efforts to get these gloves. They cost 1s. 6d., or 7½p.
When speaking of profitability. Conservative hon. Members should remember that when the snow comes this winter the workers will probably have to walk from the gates for a mile through the snow, climb up the gangway, shift the snow and chip the ice from their job before they can start work. That should be taken into consideration. Conditions in the shipyards are deplorable. There have been improvements since nationalisation, but I am speaking of a time not so many years ago. Shipwrights received the princely sum of 7s. 6d. for greasing the slipways the day before a ship was launched. We were up to our ankles in mud and slush on the after end of the ship putting grease on the slipways. Gloves were supplied for that job. The management set that payment without consultation and said that it was trying to cut costs. At the same time it stripped the joiners' shop of machinery in order to have a champagne party for the visitors and management after the launch of the ship. Those are the sort of conditions that prevailed in the shipbuilding industry.
Few manual workers received pensions. Those who managed to live long enough to retire usually left with little or nothing, and often without a word of thanks. It was left to the workers to have a whip round to give them something when they retired.
My hon. Friends have raised many questions but the Minister is reticent in answering. Matters raised by my hon. Friends show where we stand. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said in the debate on 1 November:
Let me make it clear at the outset that we wish to see a viable and competitive shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom. Along with other shipbuilding nations we recognise that with the present state of the market such an objective cannot be achieved without a measure of Government support".—[Official Report, 1 November 1979; Vol. 972, c. 1568.]
Nobody would dispute that statement. The support has been given, but with a time limit that hangs over the shipyard workers' necks. This concerns many of my hon. Friends. We do not argue with that, but we emphasise that in a world where countries are giving subsidies to the shipbuilding industry, and while other countries have import controls, our industry requires a guarantee that it will be supported against unfair competition. No one is saying that shipyard workers have a divine right to work. However, Britain lives by exports and it will always need to build ships. We need a shipbuilding industry to build merchant ships.
I know that ship repairing is not featured in clause 1 but I shall refer to it briefly. We are now hearing a great deal about scrap-and-build. If and when it comes about, it will help the marine engineering industry but it will not help a great deal of the ship repairing industry. The more ships we scrap, the fewer repairs will be required on older ships.
There was a report in the Financial Times yesterday that suggested that, because of a shortage of scrapyards in Europe, many orders may have to go to the Far East. I hope that when the Minister has discussions on scrap-and-build he will keep in mind my comments about the ship repairing industry and the scrapping of ships if ever we see the scheme implemented.

Mr. Keith Wickenden: First, I declare an interest in shipbuilding. I do so especially as the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon)—but for the hon. Gentleman's speech I should not have contributed to the debate—reierred to a ferry shipbuilding order that went to Germany because it was oversubsidised. That story has been put around for a long time and I am happy

to record the true facts. If any hon. Member is interested, I am in a position to support my case with documentary evidence.
I am chairman of a company called European Ferries Ltd., one of the larger cross-Channel ferry companies. In May 1978 I said in my annual report to my shareholders that later in the year we would be placing a shipbuilding order that might be one of the largest orders placed by any British shipowner in 1978. I said that my board and I hoped that it would be possible to place the order in a British yard.
We invited 26 yards to tender, treating the 20 British shipbuilders as one yard, and 11 did so, including British Shipbuilders. The lowest tenders came from Japan and Hong Kong. They were ruled out by my technical director on technical grounds. The next lowest tenders came from Denmark and Germany, and were extremely close at about £48 million for the three ships. Of the 11 tenders, British Shipbuilders was eleventh in price at £62 million. We may have been able to live with that, but the most disappointing part of the tender was that whereas we had required two of the ships to be delivered by 30 June 1980—the German yard could deliver one by 31 December 1979 and one by 31 March 1980—British Shipbuilders could not deliver the first until 30 June 1980, and only then, incredible as it may sound, by subcontracting to a Dutch yard.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: Will the hon Gentleman tell the House whether the Germans delivered the first vessel on time?

Mr. Wickenden: The first vessel is due for delivery on 31 December 1979. I am assured that it will be delivered on that date. It will certainly be launched on that date.
I am not seeking to blame British Shipbuilders. It may sound as though I am, but I want to be fair to it. The ships that my company ordered are specialised. Over the years British shipbuilding capacity has concentrated on much larger ships, such as tankers and bulk carriers. These are ships that contain a great deal of steelwork. Hon. Members who know a great deal more than I do about shipbuilding will know


that the fitting-out skills that are required in a ship of the passenger liner type are different from those required in a bulk carrier or tanker. Sadly, our skills in that respect have been allowed to decline. I suspect that that is one of the reasons why the German yard was able to deliver so much faster.
I wish to put the record straight. It has been said widely—I do not know from which source—that there was a massive Government subsidy. I do not believe that to be so. It is my understanding that the reason for the difference in price was that the German yard was able to deliver in half the time, which would, of course, have a bearing on the cost of production.
It has been said that the German yard went bankrupt immediately afterwards. That, too, is not true. The confusion arose because, as a condition of the contract, my company had insisted, for obvious reasons, on sterling finance. That would not be a risk that any commercial shipyard would be able to take, even if it were large enough to do so. Therefore, the commercial risk was taken by the Bremen state government, who had to pass the necessary legislation to enable them to take the risk. That is how the myth of the yard's having gone bankrupt came about. It did not go bankrupt. It is in a surprisingly thriving state.

Mr. Dixon: What I said was written in the financial section of The Guardian of 4 July.

Mr. Wiekenden: Yes. I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is saying anything that he does not believe to be true. However, I am happy to put the record right. The Guardian was wrong. It was delivery dates that caused my company to place an order, sadly, outside the United Kingdom. Difficulties about delivery dates are at the root of the troubles of the shipbuilding industry and most of our industry generally.

Mr. John Evans: The hon. Gentleman had a vested interest as he was chairman of the company placing the order. Did he investigate whether there was a subsidy coming from the German Government to allow him to have his ship at £48 million as opposed to the price that British Shipbuilders was quoting?

Mr. Wickenden: It was £48 million against £62 million. One can only ask questions. Obviously one cannot go into the depths of what is taking place behind the scenes in Germany. I am assured by those who know the German political and legislative scene more than I do that if there had been a subsidy it would have been necessary for a state law to be passed by the Bremen state government, as there was for the sterling interest factor. I am assured by the chairman of the yard concerned, for what it is worth, that there was no such subsidy.

Mr. Evans: He would give that assurance, would not he?

Mr. Wickenden: I am not so sure. The financial quotation from British Shipbuilders was well outside OECD terms. We, too, do not always strictly abide by the rules.
Delivery dates are the crux of the matter in industry generally. If, on both sides of industry, we can improve our methods and techniques so that we regard a delivery date as inviolate, we shall start to win back contracts that are now going elsewhere.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the German Government subsidise the German steel industry by means of a coking subsidy, which is an indirect subsidy to all the industries that use steel? As ships are produced in steel, it is clear that there is a subsidy. If we were to investigate other areas we would probably find that the Germans were effectively subsidising all parts of their industry that have a direct bearing on production of shipping.

Mr. Wickenden: In many respects that is a fair comment. I am delighted to say that the steel for the order that I am talking about was supplied by the British Steel Corporation. The hon. Gentleman has made a valid comment, but it does not apply to the order placed by my company. It is fair to say that throughout the world there are hidden subsidies, as there are in Britain.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the hon. Gentleman, as chairman of his company, was informed by British Shipbuilders that it could not provide the ships by a certain date, did he seek to find out why? Did he seek to examine the reasons why it


had made that decision? Did he not protest and stress the need for production to take place within the British economy? If he did so, what was the response?

Mr. Wickenden: Yes, my company made inquiries. My technical director, who deals with these matters almost excusively, had lengthy meetings with British Shipbuilders. My company wanted the order to go to a British yard if possible. Mr. Michael Casey, the chief executive of British Shipbuilders, advanced a reason to which I have already referred—namely, that the British shipbuilding industry has lost or allowed its fitting-out skills for the passenger liner type of ship to drift away. This is a type of ship that requires a great deal of fitting out. We have not built a significant passenger line-style ship for many years. Skills, I am sad to say, have drifted away.
8 pm
Another reason given was that British Shipbuilders was not proposing to build three ships in one yard. That was a dreadful mistake. It meant that a learning curve would be required in respect of each of the ships at each of three different yards. It also meant the second and third ships would probably not have been very satisfactory. When one builds a new type of ship with new technology—these were ships containing a considerable amount of new technology—in a series, the first is likely to be a bad ship, rather as the first car in a production line is more likely to have bugs in the system than is a later one. This order was for a series of three ships, possibly extending to seven later.
Although that was another reason, apparently, for delay in delivery, the primary reason was that skills had dirfted away. That is not a situation for which British Shipbuilders can be blamed. It has been in control of the situation for only a relatively short time.

Mr. Donald Dewar: The speech of the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) goes to the heart of the problems that afflict the shipbuilding industry. It is depressing for management, the work force and the nation if a company—I accept that it was acting in good will—

wished to place an order in Britain but was unable to do so. Germany is a high wage economy, a country comparable to ours in many ways. If the case set out by the hon. Member for Dorking shows what is happening, the situation is extremely depressing and distressing. I hope that Ministers and British Shipbuilders will try very hard to discover what went wrong. I should be fascinated to see the carcase of this failure dissected in an attempt to discover why we were so badly undercut. I have some sympathy wih the view that there must be some hidden subsidy. The German steel industry is an obvious competitor for such a subsidy. But the price differentials mentioned by the hon. Member for Dorking are startling and give no cause for comfort.
In clause 1, we are happily voting, or allowing, the borrowing requirements of British Shipbuilders to be increased. None of us objects to that in principle. In practice, there is no point in having wide borrowing requirements if the finance is not put to good use and we are incapable of attracting work. Without the work, the size of the borrowing requirement will not matter. At the end of the day, it will be money down the sink, if it is ever drawn. We will have a catastrophic situation in our industry. I do not object in principle to clause 1. What worries me is the practice. Hon. Members on these Benches would like to see more intervention and public support for the industry. The industry faces apalling difficulties although there are some signs, despite the case study to which the hon. Member for Dorking referred, that productivity has improved. There has been retooling to create modern yards and there are signs, according to the City pages, that freight rates and tanker rates, particularly the smaller end of the range, have recovered. There has already been a substantial drop in the amount of mothball tonnage. One hopes that more orders will soon be coming along for which British Shipbuilders can compete. Given that situation, we are happy that British Shipbuilders should have the finance to compete for those orders. It is not a case of saying, although we would like more, that we do not wish to accept the half loaf that the Government are offering. That would be a short-sighted policy.
In principle, we will give a fair wind to clause 1. It is easy to say that the borrowing requirement should be shoved up from £300 million to £600 million. That can be done. But if there is no sign of support from the Government of the kind that British Shipbuilders needs to get through this difficult period, all the efforts of this legislature and this Bill when enacted will have been in vain. The Government are telling British Shipbuilders that it has to be self-sufficient in two years. By putting this tight corset, if I may use a fashionable word, around British Shipbuilders, we are causing a great deal of dislocation and dismay in the shipbuilding industry. It seems that we are forcing British Shipbuilders to take actions which are so severe that they will be almost counter-productive in terms of the health of the industry and its long-term future at which the Government and the country should be aiming.
The hon. Member for Dorking said that Mr. Michael Casey had said that one of the reasons was that the industry had largely lost its skills. If the shipbuilding industry is further run down, chasing extremely tight and draconian financial targets, we may destroy not only those skills a lack of which led to the loss of this specialist order but our skills right across the range of merchant shipbuilding. That would be an absolute catastrophe.
Many hon. Members made the point in the debate on 1 November that it is not the British shipbuilding industry that has contributed to the vast over-capacity that the industry now faces. If we were to contract from our present point in the same proportion as the Japanese, or some of the mushrooming industries, might have to contract, we would be left with a base industry so small, having opted out of the skills that we need, that we would not be able to benefit from a recovery in the industry. That is one of the basic problems.
I am a Clydeside Member. I represent a constituency with big and substantial shipbuilding industries. It is not a traditional shipbuilding constituency in the sense that it is all a memory. It is a shipbuilding constituency at the moment. My constituents are heavily involved in and dependent upon the shipbuilding industry. I have no doubt that they would want me to give a blessing to clause 1 and to a raising of the borrowing requirement.

They would also want me to say that there is a crisis of morale in the shipbuilding industry, certainly on Clydeside, that is now reaching worrying proportions.
I do not wish to be alarmist. I want, however, to lay down my marker. We are reaching a point where the whole credibility of the corporate plan is being called in question on Clydeside in a very fundamental way. We have the two yards, Govan itself and Scotstoun Marine, which are in a state almost of dislocation. About 1,300 to 1,400 people who work in the steel trades in Govan are standing around doing nothing. One factor that will clearly destroy skill and productivity, and devastate morale, is people standing around doing nothing with no certainty that any work will come forward. That tragic situation is occurring in the Govan yard.
At the other end of Govan Shipbuilders, about 1,100 to 1,200 men at Scotstoun Marine know that the yard is going on to a care and maintenance basis. The men have no idea what is to happen to them or to the yard once it is on a care and maintenance basis. This situation is perhaps due to the hurried way in which decisions have been taken and the tight limits that the Government are imposing despite the borrowing requirement contained in clause 1. It is understood that the yard will go to Yarrow's, an extremely efficient and flourishing naval shipbuilders in my constituency. It is not clear what Yarrow's will be able to do with it or whether it will ever have a potential use for it. In the short term, I understand, Yarrow's is not likely to have a use for it. The men are being invited to volunteer for redundancy. But, given the devastating situation in the employment market, very few are volunteering at this stage. The men understand that there are to be no compulsory redundancies. A hopeless impasse has therefore arisen in which no one knows what the future holds.
On 1 November I said that there was a particular and substantial worry in Govan shipbuilders about future ordering. I raised that as forcibly as I could. I received a reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), who stood in during that shipbuilding debate. He agreed that it was perfectly


true that there would be two orders for 26,000 tonnes deadweight Cardiff class carriers coming to the Govan shipyards. He accepted that this had been included in the package when the corporate plan was unveiled, and that a letter of intent had been signed. He added that the letter of intent had not yet become a firm order. He said:
It is not unusual for a considerable period to elapse between a letter of intent and a contract".
He went on to say:
A letter can take six months or more before it becomes a firm order".—[Official Report, 1 November 1979; Vol. 972, c. 1575.]
That is not unusual in the industry, and it certainly applies in this case. I do not want to be critical of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who is not in his place. I notice that he has just emerged through a trapdoor. In no way do I wish to be critical, but my colleagues on Clydeside, and the representatives of the work force, took his words as being a little casual and perhaps dismissive. I accept that that may be a false impression, because I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is alarmed and worried about the situation.
I met the local confederation the very next day. It is very worried about morale in the yards and about keeping control in the yards when there is absolutely no hard prospect of work coming in to take up the slack. It will not be news to the hon. Gentleman to learn that there will be a meeting of the shipbuilding negotiating committee of the confederation on Monday of next week. Immediately afterwards, it hopes to meet top British Shipbuilders executives to discuss the Govan situation.
I accept that British Shipbuilders would very much like to deliver these orders, but if we find that those orders are not delivered, and unless we can get some clear commitment from the Government about work in the yards, it will be very difficult indeed to continue in the sort of limbo in which the men of skill are now placed.
I appeal to the Government to show some indication that they will take a less non-interventionist approach to the problems of Govan and many other yards in the country. As I have said before, there is a danger that they will be seen to be

doing a Pontius Pilate act and washing their hands on the sidelines. However, when a man's job and traditional skills are at risk in a yard where he has worked all his life, there is very little comfort in having a Government who say "We cannot intervene. We must leave it to British Shipbuilders, which has been told that it has got to take the kind of measures that will eliminate all financial debit within a two-year period."
We all welcome the higher borrowing requirement. But let me yet again appeal to the Minister to do something to reassure an industry that is now facing an extremely serious situation and cannot be left hanging as it is at present I recognise that it may be impossible to say anything now. Perhaps it is unreasonable to expect that, but I hope that my warning about the consequences of further inaction and no news coming forward for the men on Clydeside will be taken very much to heart and that Ministers will try to act in the near future, given a situation that is becoming intolerable. Because it is intolerable, action with regard to sanctions may be taken by the men which would be in no one's interest, but they may be driven to such action by the total lack of news and encouragement from the Government.
It would be a tragedy if we were to end up in that situation in default. Once we reached that situation, it might be very difficult indeed to undo the damage. I therefore appeal to Ministers to look seriously at the effect of their policies, and at their strict financial approach to the affairs of British Shipbuilders, given the tragedy in human and economic terms in areas such as mine.

Dr. David Clark: I hope that the Minister will agree that the tenor of the debate has been moderate and positive. That is the way in which Labour Members have tried to approach the Bill. We recognise that the Government have undertaken a difficult task. We take them at their word when they say that they want a viable and competitive shipbuilding industry.
In essence, we are now talking about the borrowing requirement of the shipbuilding industry. We should like reassurance from the Minister on a number of points before deciding whether we


shall divide the Committee. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on these points, which stem from the question whether the amount of the borrowing requirement will be enough.
8.15 pm
In one way the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said more or less the same thing. The hon. Member for Dorking said that British workmen have lost their skill in building this type of ship. My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden talked about morale. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that they aye one arm the same thing. They are one and the same reflection of a phenomenon, because we are talking about particular areas of the country that have a number of physical things in common, such as rivers and seas.
They have another thing in common. They suffer from incredibly high unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) said that male unemployment in his constituency was 16 per cent. My constituency is immediately next door, and it has an even higher rate of unemployment. I make that point because we are talking about areas of incredibly high unemployment. Therefore, in a situation in which men are worried about their futures, and when they see uncertainty, their morale and everything associated with it is bound to suffer.
The hon. Member for Dorking was honest and frank when he said that we cannot blame British Shipbuilders. We inherited this problem from the past. But it is no use looking to the past, we must build for the future. In doing so we must recognise the difficulties. We must appreciate that the two-year time scale about which the Government are talking should not be a deadline. I hope that it is not a sort of guillotine that is hovering above British Shipbuilders. If it is seen in that way, it will affect the morale and skill of the work force even more.
Having said that, it is worth while paying tribute to a certain number of workers in British Shipbuilders. I think especially of the Tyne Ship Repair Group, where, as the Minister knows, the men gave a commitment not to strike. They

kept to that. They deserve every credit for doing so, and I am glad to see the Minister concur.
In talking about the borrowing requirement, we should also think about the future of British Shipbuilders in the immediate years. That future is inevitably entangled with the policy, or non-policy, within the Common Market. That brings me back to the scrap-and-build policy. As the Minister knows, I raised this matter on 1 November and I received an answer from him yesterday. I should still like a little more commitment.
The Minister says that he is committed to the scrap-and-build policy. I should like to know whether there is any money behind it. It is easy to say "We think that this is a good idea", but may we have an assurance that, if an agreement is reached within the EEC, money will come forward from the Government to support the scheme? If the EEC scheme does not come forward, will the Minister seek power from the EEC to bring in our own scrap-and-build programme? I understand that the document to be presented to the Council of Ministers contains a number of policies—first, those funded by individual Governments; secondly, those funded by the Community; and, thirdly, a kind of partnership. I understand that the Commission has a preference for one of those options in particular but that it is for individual Governments, quite rightly, to use their sovereign right to decide which one they should follow. Will the Minister tell us, one way or another, whether there will be money to help the scrap-and-build programme of British Shipbuilders? It would be most helpful if he could give us that undertaking.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Adam Butler): I have probably expressed more support for the scrap-and-build scheme than any other Minister from the member States. Surely it goes without saying that if in principle I support a scheme that involves finance, I must be supporting the input of funds. The hon. Gentleman is correct. We hope that this measure will come before the Council of Ministers next week—and, of course, I shall be in there fighting.

Dr. Clark: I am reassured by that statement, and I publicly acknowledge the enthusiasm of the Minister. But the Opposition have a right to be sceptical,


because they know that this Government are very keen to cut back money supply. I hope that the Minister will fight very hard within the EEC for the scheme to be brought forward.
When we are dealing with the borrowing requirements of British Shipbuilders, as we are under this clause, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden said, it is no use having the money unless we can do something with it. I come back to the point on which we keep probing the Government and on which we are still not satisfied—public service orders. It is known that the previous Government carried out a survey of the public service to see whether there were any potential orders. I do not know what the outcome was, but I understand that there were certain discussions about hydrographic vessels. What has happened about those? Are we to get any orders from this area?
What about British Shipbuilders using its money, possibly under the borrowing requirements, to build ships not necessarily "on spec" but for lease? I have specifically in mind liaison between, for example, the British Steel Corporation and British Shipbuilders. As the Minister knows, the factor that brought this to my mind was that when British Steel, a nationalised body owned by the people, wanted to lease a ship it leased a Scandinavian-built one from Ladbroke's, a private organisation.
Could there not be more co-ordination and advance liaison about the requirements of various publicly owned industries with British Shipbuilders to try to bring things together?
On the question of finance, I draw the attention of the Minister to a problem that I face at present and on which I should like his help. What amount of money may British Shipbuilders borrow? On 1st November, I mentioned that Peter Johnston, a firm in my constituency, had gone into liquidation, with the loss of about 300 jobs. The company had been primarily involved in fitting out ships.
Though it is bad enough for men to lose their jobs, the real problem is that 37 apprentices also lost their jobs. I am sure that the Minister and the House will agree, as they did on 1 November, that we must de everything in our power

to try to retain the skill of our people. Nowhere is that more true, and nowhere is there a greater danger of disillusionment, than among young people.
I ask the Minister to intervene with the shipbuilding industry training board. An approach was made to it yesterday by a group of people in the constituency, including North of England engineering employers, the various unions, the employment services and the South Shields marine and technical college. It would be a great help if the Minister could advise us on that matter.
Will the Minister make any further comments about the amount of subsidies available to the shipbuilding industry, even within the EEC? I know that Ministers of all Governments say "We play by the rules. As far as we can judge, the other side also plays by the rules." Unfortunately, some of us are beginning to doubt that. I was very impressed by the paper produced by John Parker, in which he listed the aids given to their shipbuilding industries by our European competitors. Has the Minister any more thoughts on the terms and conditions, and is he satisfied that those in Britain are adequate?
I remind the Minister of a point that I made previously. 1 am glad to hear that he will go to the Council of Ministers meetings to fight for the British shipbuilding industry, but recently one of his Cabinet colleagues, when asked what the Common Market had achieved, said that it had stopped France going Communist. What he really meant was that the Common Market had saved the traditional industry of France, which is agriculture. That is more important than sheep—I hope that that is not too emotive—cows and turnips. In France, agriculture is an economic sub-culture which has kept many people on the land and has brought prosperity to many areas that would have been severely depressed
I suggest that my analogy is not far wrong, because the shipbuilding industry not only builds ships but provides many related jobs. For every job in the shipbuilding yards there are three or four outside. There is a sub-economy in shipbuilding areas that is vital to maintain the employment level.
When the Minister begins to barter and bargain at the Council of Ministers


I hope that he will not concede the point that there will be an equal slimming down of all industries within the EEC. It must be borne in mind that, just as agriculture is important to France, the shipbuilding industry is a traditional part of our culture. We cannot concede to the EEC that it must be cut down to the same level as in smaller nations.

Mr. John Evans: I am proud to take part in this debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon). Like him, I was born and bred in that town. I do not believe that either of us, when we were respectively union chairman and secretary at one of the major Tyneside shipyards in the 1960s, thought we would see the day when we would be discussing the problems of the shipbuilding industry in the House of Commons. However, time flies and it is interesting to note that we are both shipyard workers who left school at 14 and spent most of our working lives in the industry.
My hon. Friend gave a graphic description of the problems and conditions which shipbuilding workers have endured for so long. Part of the problem is that those who work and suffer—in many cases seeing fellow workers die—in the industry have long and bitter memories. There are deep-seated problems in the industry.
We welcome the Bill, for what it is worth. However, one of the problems facing the Government is the question of credibility—whether the workers in the industry or even the public feel that there is a true, meaningful commitment by the present Government to the British shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering industries. The three industries are linked.
Although ships are not now built in my constituency, one of the largest factories there, the GEC Vulcan works at Newton-le-Willows, is a very large supplier of small diesel engines to the British shipping industry. That industry, like shipbuilding, is flat on its back at present. Considerable numbers of my constituents are facing redundancy because of lack of orders flowing from the shipping industry.
8.30 pm
I am not at all surprised that the Conservative Benches are empty, apart from the Government Front Bench. There is always very little interest on the part

of Conservative Members in the problems of this industry. I am particularly sad that the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) has left the Chamber. He made some very important points which deserve some answers. I think that we all recognise that the hon. Member was not attacking British Shipbuilders—indeed, he spoke in sad terms—but in cold print it will read as an attack upon British Shipbuilders. He referred particularly to three issues which concerned him, as the chairman of a major shipping company, in placing his orders in foreign yards and not British yards—price, delivery dates and lack of skills.
On the price issue, we should need a great deal of evidence and knowledge of what went on at the time of the order before we could pass judgment. From my experience in the House of Commons and my experience of three years in the European Parliament, I suspect that a very large subsidy was paid by the German authorities for the building of those ships. That may be disputed. We would need to see the evidence.
What concerns me was the hon. Member's concentration upon delivery dates. In this respect I feel that he may know a great deal about shipping but little about shipbuilding. One of the things we would all need to know on the question of the delivery date is whether British Shipbuilders had a berth available on which to put the ship. After all, one could hardly take a skeleton of a ship off a berth to put one of the hon. Member's ships on it. We would need to know a great deal more about the position before simply putting it on the record that British Shipbuilders was late in delivering, like every other British industry. We would need to know what would have been the starting date of the ship, and the completion time. That evidence was not given to us.
The other point which is of fundamental importance in the debate on this clause, which is concerned with the future of British shipbuilding, is the loss of skills. I refute the hon. Gentleman's argument that we are losing skills in the building of liners. I think that all hon. Members who have any knowledge of shipbuilding know that no one is ordering liners any more. Most people now travel in aeroplanes. Only a few liners are involved in cruising.

Dr. John Cunningham: To be fair to the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden), I think that he almost made the matter clear, although perhaps to get it on record, as my hon. Friend rightly says, it is important to make it plain that the hon. Member was referring to orders placed in 1978, and he said that British Shipbuilders at that time did not have the skills. If that is so, as British Shipbuilders took over only in 1977, it must be made abundantly clear that the loss of skills, if it occurred, occurred under private enterprise and not under public ownership.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend has anticipated one of the points I wanted to make. One of the serious problems that will face what is left of the industry of the future will be the lack of skills which will be brought about by a lack of apprentices being taken into the industry. Nevertheless, I reject the argument that British Shipbuilders is losing any skills whatever. Today British Shipbuilders workers are building some of the most sophisticated warships which have ever sailed the seas.
The hon. Member for Dorking referred to fitting out. Although he may not have realised it, there is obviously a difference in fitting out a bulk carrier or a tanker as opposed to a liner or a cross-Channel ferry. Nevertheless, in fitting out those ships certain skills are involved which apply to all ships. It is important for that to be put on the record, because I should not like people reading the report of the debate in Hansard to think that we on the Labour Benches were prepared to listen silently to even a well-meant attack on British Shipbuilders on the two issues of delivery dates and skills. In this industry we have all the skills necessary. If the industry received substantial backing from the Government in financial terms and planning terms, we could assure the world that we could build anything that the world requires.
Given the lack of capital investment in private industry, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow, British Shipbuilders has a proud record on delivery dates. In the four years following the setting up of the Swan Hunter consortium on Tyneside, every single delivery date was met.
On 1 November, the Minister said that he hoped that hon. Members would not press him on borrowing requirement limits, but we are entitled to know what commitment over what period the Government have in mind for the industry. Yesterday there was an article in the Financial Times on the scrap-and-build policy, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) covered much of that aspect. The Financial Times has a proud record of leaks from Government Departments which invariably turn out to be correct—and I am not talking of just this Government. The article says:
The UK Government believes the scheme would be worthwhile if it was introduced quickly, before the expected upturn begins, and if it was organised on a national basis.
We are fascinated to know when the Government believe that that upturn will occur. I can see nothing on the horizon to indicate any upturn in world trade.
Most of the industry's problems result from the cataclysmic downturn in world trade over the past few years. If there was an upsurge and ships were in demand, I suspect that we should not be discussing the Bill. We are discussing the future of British shipbuilding in the context of a recession that is probably the worst since the 1930s.
I hope that the Government recognise the absolute necessity of retaining the British shipbuilding industry. We want not merely a shell but an industry that can cater for Britain's future requirements. Although we are members of the EEC—and some of us do not welcome that—we are an island and a trading nation. When world trade improves, we shall doubtless again supply ships to the world if we have a shipbuilding industry left.
I hope that the Government will give a clear undertaking to support the British shipbuilding industry during the few difficult years. Other countries are subsidising their industries, and ours should not be left to stand on its own feet to face competition that is patently unfair and in many cases discriminatory. The Government must have a long-term commitment to the industry.
It is not merely the shipbuilding industry on Tyneside, Clydeside, Merseyside or elsewhere that is affected. Other


industries in other parts of the country are closely tied to shipbuilding. The shipbuilding and ship repairing industries are synonymous. They employ large numbers of people and their decline would also have an impact on other industries throughout the country. The shipyard provides only 30 per cent. of the components of a ship and 70 per cent. comes from other industries which are therefore dependent on a prosperous shipbuilding industry. They need the base of those orders to ensure that they produce the goods for domestic needs and for export. It is important to recognise that we are not discussing shipbuilding purely in terms of Tyneside, Clydeside or any of the other great yards. This industry is not only a major strategic industry but it is also one that has an impact throughout the country.

Mr. Dixon: Does my hon. Friend also agree that one of the biggest customers of British Steel, which is now in such a perilous position, is British Shipbuilders?

Mr. Evans: That is obviously an important point. One of the great problems facing the steel industry is the downturn in orders, particularly in the shipbuilding industry, as a vast amount of steel is used in the production of a ship. This endorses the point that I have been trying to make about not looking at shipbuilding in isolation. It is a major and key strategic industry and its prosperity has repercussions far beyond its areas.
I hope that the Minister will cover these points when he replies to the debate. I hope that the Government will recognise that the industry is looking for a long-term commitment from them. The industry has heard enough about lame ducks being slaughtered and profitability being the essence. The Government and the British people must recognise that this industry cannot be profitable in the short term. A major upturn in world trade is needed before there can be any hope of profitability.

Mr. Frank Field: I wish to support the Bill, particularly clause 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) put his finger on an important point when he spoke about the atmosphere and morale in the yards. The atmosphere and morale in Cammell Laird is much the same as that in other yards. It is very much

affected by statements from the Government Front Bench. I am sure that Cammell Laird people will carefully comb the pages of Hansard tomorrow to see whether the Government are prepared to be more forthcoming than they have been in the past.
I visited Cammell Laird very soon after the Minister of State paid his summer visit to the yard. I was struck by the fact that both management and men were united in their comments about the qualities of the Minister. They felt that it was a welcome change to have someone who was prepared to listen, but they both went on to say that they wished he would begin to give them answers to some of their questions. I cannot help but recall those comments when I think that this is the third or fourth time that we have tried to probe the Government's thinking on the substance of the initial policy statement by the Minister of State on the shipbuilding industry.
Like many other Members on this side of the Committee, I realise that Cammell Laird faces particular problems brought about by the decline of the shipbuilding industry in this country. The announcement earlier this week about the Government's plans for Shotton have important implications for Merseyside as a whole and Birkenhead in particular. Some of my constituents work at Shot-ton, and the Birkenhead dock is primarily dependent on bringing ore into Shotton. If Shotton is closed, the Birkenhead dock might also be closed and many people put out of work.
Birkenhead has two main industries—the port industries and shipbuilding. I hope that when the Minister replies he will say something about the whole series of policies that have been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) on a number of occasions. I hope that this time we will have a reaction from the Government Front Bench.
8.45 pm
In particular, I hope that the Minister will comment on two areas which are crucial to the North-West. In correspondence and in the House I have asked the Minister of State what he meant when he said that the Government would try to bring forward public sector orders. I had been a Member for only a few


weeks when I realised that one's questions were answered only if the Minister had good news to give. I hope that I am present in the House when the Minister announces the bringing forward of public sector orders, because he will deservedly make the most of it when he has accomplished that task. Let us hope that soon he has good news.
Like many of my hon. Friends, I fought an election campaign against opponents who said that if a Conservative Government were elected the defence budget would be increased, as it has been, and that such an increase would bring orders to shipyards such as Cammell Laird. I look forward to the time—I hope it is soon, because of the effect on morale in yards on the Clyde and in the North-West—when Ministers can announce the bringing forward of defence orders.
My third point is one about which I have asked the Minister for details before. For once, I do not expect an answer. I hope that those who work in British shipbuilding will shortly see a change in Government policy. I am sure that the Minister and other right hon. and hon. Members saw the report in yesterday's edition of The Times by Peter Hill on the possible loss of an order worth about £200 million from the Hong Kong-based World-Wide (Shipping) Group. Peter Hill went on to say that Ministers had been made aware of what is now, I suppose, a new phrase which we shall hear frequently in the House, the "attractive soft credits" being offered by our competitors to win orders which might otherwise go to this country.
The report reaffirmed that the present Government, perhaps like the previous Government, are abiding by the spirit and the letter of the OECD guidelines on competition in this field. Peter Hill emphasised that executives at British Shipbuilders had made it clear to the Government that it was not that we were competing unequally with groups or nations outside the EEC, but that we were now not competing on equal terms with our EEC partners.
I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I bring up to date the contribution that John Parker of British Ship

builders continually makes to our debates. In that report in yesterday's edition of The Times he was reported as saying:
'The United Kingdom has adhered to the OECD understanding on export credit for ships, but in situations where other countries have not, and do not, it is crucial that British Shipbuilders should have the opportunity to match such terms.
I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate he will for once have good news for those who work in British shipyards and for those of us who represent them. I hope that he will be able to answer some of our questions on the meaning in practice of the key policy statement which he made some months ago. I do not expect him to comment on whether the Government will change their mind about putting British Shipbuilders on equal terms with our competitors, both within the EEC and outside, when competing for orders. I hope that he will be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee on any quiet directives he gave to British Shipbuilders to go out and win orders on terms equal to those countries which are snatching orders from us now.
The Minister may be surprised that I do not end, as I usually end my contributions to shipbuilding debates, with a whole string of questions. I hope that Government policies will soon be finalised and that the hon. Gentleman will be able to announce the effects of the increased defence budget on our shipyards and the bringing forward of public sector orders.
Every hon. Member who has spoken has said how disappointing it is to have an allocation of funds with which the clause deals but of which Government policy at present is making so little use.

Mr. Ron Brown: The contributions to the debate have confirmed one thing—that shipbuilding is the Aunt Sally of the United Kingdom economy. We know the reason. Basically, the industry has suffered at the hands of private owners. In the good times, they said that they did not need to invest, and when the bad times came they said that they could not afford to invest.
That could be said of many other aspects of the British economy, but it is particularly true of shipbuilding. It is bad in my constituency, where we have


Robb Caledon, the other half of the famous operation on the East Coast of Scotland. The part of that operation in Leith will remain, but we must look at that shipyard. It is called the Victoria shipyard, and is well named, because it is ancient. The yard finds it hard to compete in world markets, because it is not efficient. It is extremely backward, using equipment that should belong to a museum.
The same story could be told of other parts of the country. The world economic crisis has worsened the position, as we all recognise, but it has been helped along by Government policies, which are intensifying the recession and crisis. In that situation, fewer vessels, not more, are needed. When we are fighting for contracts, we find that there is the old 1930-style strategy of a trade war, which leads to arguments for further closures. That is the problem now.
I believe that the recently announced closures are only the first round. I must be realistic. I tell my constituents "Your yard has been saved for the time being, but be on the defensive." They are on the defensive, and rightly so.
The men are willing to co-operate with management. The former owners have gone, but unfortunately there are still the old ideas in management, and those ideas will not be moved. There may be various reasons. Perhaps the present Government have something to do with it. I believe that massive investment should come from the State, and I welcome the Government's measures. They are important for investment, but they are simply a drop in the ocean compared with the magnitude of the problem. Many hon. Members have spoken of the investment in other countries.
We must look to the future. We must examine the problems of British shipbuilding and wherever possible eradicate them. It would be wrong for anyone in Government or elsewhere to pussyfoot around with the jobs and the future of many families, whether in Scotland or in England. The problems are the same.
It is interesting that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), a representative of the Scottish National Party, has disappeared from the Chamber. I should have thought that he would at least stay to make a contribution on behalf of his constituency.
What can we do about the problem? We can argue the case for shipping lines in this country investing in our yards. It is up to the Government to put on the pressure. We should insist that the lines buy British ships. Many ships need replacing. Possibilities exist with the scrap-and-build programme but pressure must be put on the Government. Any measures we can take are limited, but we must not say that the British shipbuilding industry will go to the wall and disappear. Shipbuilding workers are leaving the industry because they feel that it is doomed. It is ironic that some shipyards are looking for skilled workers. The CBI has said that it is difficult to get skilled workers for industry, including the engineering industry. Not enough apprentices are being trained.
The Government's attitude seems to be in favour of investing overseas. Perhaps industrialists have no faith in this country. No doubt, big business will go for the fast buck and speculate. That will not assist the country or the principle of nationalisation. We all accept that nationalisation is an important step forward. Even Conservatives support it to an extent. Of course, it is not perfect, and when it operates in a capitalist economy it does not operate on behalf of working-class people.
Talking in Socialist terms, we require the "commanding heights" of the economy—as pointed out by Nye Bevan—to run industry and help shipbuilding. I hope that the next Labour Government will give resources to the industry to modernise the yards. We must commit ourselves to that proposal and state it to the industry and its trade unionists. In that way we shall win their confidence. The electorate at large has little confidence in the Government's administration but at least we can state our commitment.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. On 1 November the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland did not clear up several matters. I should like to raise those today. I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) when he regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). I find it strange that at this vital Committee stage on the Shipbuilding Bill the hon. Member for Dundee, East,


who is an honest and sincere man, should not find it necessary to be in the Chamber. We find ourselves in this position because of the actions of the hon. Member for Dundee, East and his colleagues. On 3 May some of his electorate were rewarded for their support by joining the unemployment register. It is sad that he is not here tonight, because I am sure that he would have made a valuable contribution.
I hope that the Minister has seen a copy of that new newspaper, the Dundee Standard. It contains a full page of photographs outlining some of the problems faced by the workers in the yard. I served my apprenticeship there 19 or 20 years ago. The pictures were familiar to me but it was unacceptable that, 20 years later, the platers who bring the plates from the yard to the ship are using the same broken-down, dilapidated barrow that was in use when I was an apprentice. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) who tried, on Second Reading, to make play of the supposed losses incurred by Robb Caledon. The hon. Member for Dundee, East and I answered the hon. Gentleman on that point.
9 pm
Discussions are taking place in the joint working group on the Dundee yard and other yards, including Leith, where the situation is slightly worse than that at Robb Caledon. The majority of yards could do with more subsidy. The problem is that the sums contained in the Bill are not as large as we would like.
On Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland did not satisfy my hon. Friends and myself in relation to the two-year period. I quoted from the Cambridge economic forecast which states clearly that there will be a fall of 9 per cent. in shipbuilding demand this year and a further 7 per cent. fall in 1980–81. Labour Members have a right to press the Government to ensure that workers in the yards are convinced that there is not an exact time limit within the two-year period.
Despite the Government statements, reported in the Financial Times on Monday, it would be helpful to those in the industry if we could know which scheme the Government intend to pursue for

the scrap-and-build programme. It would be relevant for the Minister to answer that point tonight.
In Dundee a joint working party has been set up between British Shipbuilders, the shipbuilding negotiating committee, shop stewards and the local community. It may not be appropriate for the Government to make a statement on discussions that are taking place, but I am confident that the group's report will make nonsense of the comments of the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West on Second Reading.
I have knowledge of the agreements in the Dundee yard and I am confident that the working party will confirm that the agreements made between the finishing trades, the general workers and the boilermakers are such that if they had been used properly by the management, some of the problems facing Robb Caledon would not exist. It is important to note that British Shipbuilders has made significant changes in its top personnel in that yard. I hope that those points are taken into account in any deliberations that take place.
I am also confident that the working party will acknowledge that many of the competitive yards in British Shipbuilders do not have the agreements that exist in Robb Caledon and that the lesson is that those yards could be even more competitive if they had such agreements. I hope that in these discussions there will be consideration of the idea that has been floated of having a synchro lift installed in the Dundee yard. The workers in the yard and I, and anyone with any knowledge of shipbuilding, fail to understand where the local district council got the idea that somehow if the synchro lift was introduced 2,000 jobs would be created in ship repairing. It stretches one's imagination to work out where one could employ 2,000 people in ship repairing anywhere in this country. That number of additional jobs is just not on.
If the study group concludes that Robb Caledon should have a synchro lift, I hope that there will be no problem with the funding. Some of the sums of money that have been mentioned are quite considerable. There has been talk of £6 million, and I hope that the Government will not prevent British Shipbuilders from getting the necessary funds to ensure


that the project goes ahead if it is found to be viable.
The primary aim of the workers in the Robb Caledon yard is to retain shipbuilding there. The comments of the Under-Secretary on Second Reading demonstrated the need to retain shipbuilding at the Dundee yard. He suggested that one of the features that could be used under the Blackpool agreement was inter-yard transfers. I am sure that he realises that to apply that scheme to Dundee would mean moving workers and their families 60 miles to the next nearest yard. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leith said, that is not the most modern and up-to-date of yards. I doubt whether it could absorb workers from other yards, and anyway the problem of moving workers and their families from Dundee would make transfers unacceptable.
I hope that the Minister's reference to a sensible plan for recruitment is not meant to infer that apprentices will not be taken on. If we are to have a viable industry in the 1980s and beyond, we must continue to recruit apprentices, both in manual trades and for the design staff. If we do not train young people in the design skills, we shall never be able to compete with foreign yards. In particular, I should like to see the skills in the Robb Caledon design office retained. I hope that the Minister will indicate tonight that there is no intention of downgrading or eliminating the yard's design capability.
The workers in Dundee hope that the Government will be prepared to review the borrowing limits favourably and seriously if the upturn in demand is as certain as the Cambridge economic review has suggested. We hope that this is only the first stage of a commitment that in the 1980s and 1990s we shall have a viable shipbuilding industry.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Marshall): The debate has ranged very widely. I make no complaint about that. However, it presents me with some difficulties, as to answer all the questions raised would take me well beyond the rules of order as they apply to a narrowly drawn clause.
We are discussing the doubling of the borrowing powers of British Shipbuilders.

The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) summarised the key questions relating to that aspect, and there was a helpful and constructive debate. I recognise the sincerity and deep interest shown by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. The Government want to respond. Although, in the ambit of this debate, it is difficult to consider all the matters raised, we take on board many of the points made.
Perhaps the hon. Members for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) and Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) were attempting to hot things up towards the end of this part of our debate. I remind there that we must consider another clause and the Third Reading, and I hope that we may return to some of the broader issues later.
The way in which the debate ranged reinforced many points that were raised on Second Reading. I shall try to pull together into five main areas the points raised by hon. Members on both sides. The debate highlighted the fact that the borrowing powers must be seen within a broader context. Frankly, I wish that we could answer some of the key questions that were raised. The question that dominates the minds of all Members of Parliament is this: to what extent can we predict the upturn in this market?
I was heartened to hear the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) say that things were looking more optimistic in his part of the world. However, this is a difficult problem, whatever the mechanism we seek to balance the borrowing powers, including the intervention fund, and on whatever basis we seek to help this great industry. The trade unions have shown that by their acceptance of the proposals put to them by British Shipbuilders. We recognise that this will be a difficult, uphill task over many years.
Within the five broad areas, I refer first to the intervention fund. The detail was spelt out pretty well on Second Reading. We now have a two-year agreement, which will help us to move ahead with rather more certainty. Part of the importance of the intervention fund and its retention brings me back to a question raised by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Evans). It is natural for us all to distrust other areas and the subsidising of their industries.
This industry, almost more than any other, is one in respect of which our membership of the Community has been of great value. In setting the limits for the intervention fund—indeed, in looking at policies on scrap-and-build and many other questions—we have an opportunity to test and evaluate the sincerity and determination of other countries to play by the rules. The Government would want to move quickly, upon any evidence of unfair competition from hon. Members on either side. I urge all hon. Members, with their experience and constituency contacts, to help us if they feel that there is such evidence. The intervention fund is a key in that sense.
I now refer to the scrap-and-build scheme. My hon. Friend the Minister of State is grateful for the expressions of good will and support as he goes to discuss the matter with the Council of Ministers on 20 November. The House will understand why, in this delicate negotiating position, this is neither the time nor the place to declare the Government's hand in detail. We are looking for a cost-effective scheme. My hon. Friend has been well to the fore and, many would admit, pre-eminent in urging this cause. I know that he appreciates, as do all Government supporters, the way in which the Opposition gave help and support in that endeavour.
Looking at the wider context within which clause 1 has been viewed tonight, all hon. Members recognise that a credit race to replace the intervention fund race, or any other part of the shipbuilding war, will not help anybody. That is why there is common agreement that we should maintain the OECD limits on credit.
9.15 pm
Productivity, the fifth key element, has played a large part in the debate. Many of us were grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden), who was not able to stay for the whole of the debate and who was particularly anxious to hear the speech by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon). My hon. Friend always gives a courteous and careful hearing to anyone who is an expert in his field and it was helpful to hear the views of someone who has to make purchasing decisions.
The key question on productivity is how we assess whether our industry is moving towards greater productivity. The trade unions have shown some recognition that all is not well. The hon. Member for Newton gave us some helpful advice about the technical assessment that would be necessary to establish fairly what is a late delivery. He also discussed the problem of start-up time. I think, however, that he would be the first to recognise that with a thin order book one might expect to find berths more easily than at other times.

Mr. John Evans: It does not necessarily follow that an empty berth, which might be suitable for building a VLCC, woud be ideal for building a cross-Channel ferry. It is not just a question of empty berths. The important point to recognise is that the available berth should be suitable for the ship required.

Mr. Marshall: The point is well made. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, at a time when there is greater spare capacity, necessary adaptation and change is more feasible than at other times. The point about market opportunity that has been made in the debate is one that many in British Shipbuilders will no doubt take on board.
The delivery differential in the contract for the Esso support vessel which went to Finland—when so many competing firms were quoting a two-year delivery date against our three years—demonstrates that productivity is not an idle concept. Many hon. Members, with their experience of the industry, appreciate that this is a key issue and that it is part of the basis on which the trade unions and management of British Shipbuilders are striving to make the industry competitive in probably the most internationally competitive manufacturing game in the world.
The hon. Member for Wallsend was a little more optimistic, and I hope that that optimism reflects market trends. We must not get too excited at the prospect of a few more orders this year than last year for British Shipbuilders, because orders are still well below capacity. When talking to ship owners I find a remarkable degree of unanimity among them about the age of their fleets. They tend to say that their vessels are modern. The passenger liner industry, in which


Clydeside made its name famous all over the world, is declining. More people are flying and so the liner market becomes increasingly limited. The hon. Member for Jarrow, with his trade union experience, was perhaps led astray when he referred to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland as being sarcastic. I am sure that if he re-reads column 1576 of the Official Report he will find that my hon. Friend was welcoming his contribution.
My hon. Friend made a valid point about scrap-and-build and the way in which that may be extended to ship repairing. The Government will consider it.
The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking was followed by a speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). There was a degree of common ground. The industry is declining and there is a fear that the skills will slip away. There is evidence that some of the most able workers are leaving the industry.
Hon. Members have sought assurances that the Government are doing all that they can to deal with their anxieties. The Government understand the problems. Nobody would wish to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that we are doing anything but pursuing with the utmost vigour the opportunities to help this great industry. That applies to public purchasing and wherever there are opportunities to assist.
It is difficult to make off-the-cuff pronouncements in the midst of the negotiations within the Community and when we are reviewing the number of issues, including hydrographic vessels.
The hon. Member for Whitehaven described accurately the basis upon which the clause provides for the borrowing powers to be doubled in two tranches. The first tranche involves £500 million, with provision for a further increase, subject to the approval of the House. The borrowing powers cover the aggregate amounts that British Shipbuilders and its wholly owned subsidiaries can borrow, other than by way of interest and loans exempted under section 11(9) of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act and public dividend capital received by British Shipbuilders.
The hon. Member for Whitehaven asked whether I could assure him that

that was enough. When he asked the question, the hon. Member knew that it was unanswerable. The state of the market and the degree of international agreement must be considered. The hon. Member will recognise that borrowing powers and the revenue account are separate. Profitability can affect the degree to which borrowing powers are necessary.
Let us examine what has happened in recent months. British Shipbuilders has so far drawn £135 million from the Exchequer, against a ceiling of £300 million, plus £33 million by way of foreign borrowing in connection with the Polish deal. It also has a temporary borrowing facility of up to £30 million.
British Shipbuilders estimates that its limit will be exceeded by early 1980. This borrowing limit was set by the previous Government to cover a five-year period but it will probably be taken up in about three years.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Do the figures that my hon. Friend has just given take account of the expenditure of £170 million in excess of the expenditure agreed for the Polish deal?

Mr. Marshall: I cannot give an answer, but I shall be happy to inquire about it. We are speaking of basic global sums to which British Shipbuilders had recourse.
The trend in borrowing reflects the adverse trading conditions facing the industry. It is important to stress that the increase in the borrowing limit in no way means support for British Shipbuilders additional to that which was outlined in my right hon. Friend's July statement, which set loss and cash limits for this year and a loss limit for next year.
Some of the borrowings that have gone in the past to capital investment reflect a continuing trend. The figures are interesting. In 1977 and 1978 capital expenditure, less grants, totalled £17 million. Last year the figure was £23 million. Expenditure this financial year is running at about the same level.
On capital expenditure, it seems that the order of magnitude is running at a steady level. A large part of that expenditure has been used for modernisation schemes, some of which were started prior to nationalisation. It may be of interest to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and other hon. Members to know


that half of that expenditure has been spent on the naval yards. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's interest in the naval yards because Cammell Laird has been moving into that area.
The remainder of the borrowing is accounted for by losses that, after tax and interest, amounted to £93 million to 31 March 1978 and £64 million in 1978–79. In view of the uncertainty of the future size and shape of the industry and the problem of assessing market demand, I have tried to show that it is not possible to say how long the money will last.
It was explained on Second Reading that we have asked British Shipbuilders to make substantial progress towards viability. I hope that the new limits will be longer than the five years estimated for the previous limits. In general, the Government feel that this is the right measure and that clause 1 reflects a basic undertaking given to British Shipbuilders at a difficult time. It recognises the degree of agreement reached with trade unions on the present contingency planning. In that sense, and in that spirit, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

GUARANTEES IN RESPECT OF ALTERATIONS OF SHIPS, ETC.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dick Douglas: I tabled an amendment, Mr. Crawshaw, that was not selected, no doubt for good reasons. I wish to put some probing questions to the Minister.
In 1976, during the Committee stage of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, the then Under-Secretary said in response to an amendment to impose a duty on British Shipbuilders to enter some aspects of the offshore market:
For all these reasons, it would be inappropriate to impose a duty on the new British Shipbuilders to enter this field. But if the corporation were to identify worthwhile opportunities for building rigs and sub

mersibles and for diversions such as this, they would be encouraged and they could extend their activities to this area with the Secretary of State's approval."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 20 January 1976; c. 293.]
I do not wish to go over the whole area describing semi-submersibles and submersibles because I am sure that I should be called to order.
It is important to consider the definitions in section 10 of the Industry Act 1972 and to ascertain from the Minister what he means by a "mobile offshore installation". It is a subject of much discussion because of the new techniques and devices engaged in offshore operations. It is important to understand clearly what he means because of the nature of guarantees that may be asked for in relation to the new devices.
9.30 pm
I am not clear whether the section 10 guarantees and the guarantees that stem from the Bill would apply to what is called a tethered buoyant or tension leg structure. The difficulty is that we have not built any of these structures. I press my point by way of an illustration. It is becoming clear that if oil is discovered in deeper waters the fixed structure, be it gravity based or steel jacketed, will not be the means by which such oil discoveries will be exploited. The industry is not entirely clear what devices it would use. One of the devices that is likely to be used is a tension leg platform.
I am keen to obtain clarification because design studies are being undertaken by one of the oil companies that is operating in the North Sea, namely, Conoco. The studies have been the subject of letters between my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of State, Department of Energy. Unhappily, the Scottish Minister is absent from the Chamber, so I shall confine myself to reading the Minister of State's reply to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentle man wrote:
I, too, am keen that the fabrication contract"—
that is the Conoco tension leg oil production platform—
should come to the UK in view of its value and the employment that it will provide and also because this will be the first full-scale platform of this type to be ordered. The


award of the contract will of course be a matter for Conoco's own commercial judgment, but the Offshore Supplies Office (OSO) of my Department will certainly ensure that UK companies, including Scott Lithgow, have a full and fair opportunity to compete. OSO could not, however, seek to influence Conoco to favour one UK company over another.
The timing of the fabrication contract is uncertain because the development plan for the Hutton field has not yet been received, but we do not expect Conoco to invite bids before May 1980. Scott Lithgow's experience may give them an edge but they will have to be competitive to get the contract.
All that is perfectly fair so far as it goes, but one of the factors to be considered is the mobility of the structure. It is distinctly possible to have the structure built a considerable distance away from the North Sea and towed to site, not for completion, but in a completed state. That is a consideration that the Government must have very much in mind if they are anxious, as I am and as I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends are, to have the structure built in a United Kingdom yard.
Other structures that have been used in the North Sea are not necessarily suitable for building in shipyards. We had to build special facilities by means of huge Government subventions. We had to build special yards to enable the building of concrete, gravity-based structures. They were towed out and placed on the oilfields. There is now a distinct opportunity to build structures of the type that I have described. Indeed, on occasions they could be specifically designed to be built in shipyards. I want to know how the Government propose to assist in terms of the guarantees that could be given. They are not expensive guarantees. By no means are they the type of guarantees that would be offered by the Japanese or other nations in order to be the first to build this type of structure.
I have declared on previous occasions my interest in this matter. My interest in one device goes back over five years. In July 1974, I went to Los Angeles and began discussions with Deep Oil Technology in order that United Kingdom companies, or one company in particular, could become interested in this device and build it in the United Kingdom. That was a five-year planning haul. It would be ridiculous, after this time, when we are reaching the point when one company, Conoco, is anxious that this structure

should be built—I would hope, in the United Kingdom—if we found ourselves not fully competitive because companies are not offered the necessary type of financial incentive.
I rest my case on this detailed, almost legalistic point in terms of the interpretation of section 10 of the 1972 Act and of clause 2 of this Bill. I recognise that this can be interpreted as a narrow legal point. I know there are difficulties for the Minister who will be replying. I wish, however, to avoid the situation in which the Minister says that he cannot take action because the matter does not fall within the section of a particular Act.

Dr. John Cunningham: We welcome the extension of the power of the Secretary of State under section 10 of the Industry Act, provided by clause 2 of the Bill. As a man who professes not to interfere in industry and who almost daily takes more powers to himself, the Minister is again giving himself more power. We welcome the proposal. It is much in accord with the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) on 4 April this year, which appears in column 831 of Hansard of that date. It is a limited measure, but it will be welcomed throughout industry. The amount of money involved—about£2 million a year is the Government estimate—is small, relatively speaking. Why cannot some effort be made to enlarge the opportunities that may be available under this provision? There is a desperate need in the ship repairing industry and in shipbuilding for more work. As the nation still with the fourth largest merchant fleet, we must have a good, soundly based ship repair industry in the United Kingdom.
I turn to the case set out by the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. Two of the points in its programme may be apposite in respect of the provisions under the clause. The enforcement—if it could be agreed to—of segregated ballast tanks in ships and the provision for the installation of inert gas systems where necessary are two proposals that could perhaps provide work under the provisions of the Bill, and may provide opportunities for more work. I shall be grateful if the Minister can deal with this point.
I think that I am right in assuming that this extension of the home credit schtme will make our ship repair industry not only more competitive but more attractive to United Kingdom owners. Therefore, we call upon the Government to do everything that they can to persuade the owners of this large fleet to have their ships repaired in United Kingdom yards. I should add that here I am referring to the yards of both British Shipbuilders and those of the private sector of the industry, where there are real problems as well.
In his remarks on the debate on clause 1 stand part, the Minister did not answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) about apprenticeships. Since that is important in terms of ship repair, I hope that he will now deal with that point. He mentioned our obligations under OECD and EEC treaties when he referred to aid to the industry. In his informative and now widely quoted paper on 17 October this year, Mr. John Parker made some categorical statements about the situation that exists in other EEC member States, as well as in regard to others which ostensibly at least have the same obligations under OECD as we have.
One is bound to ask what the point is of the Government playing the game of cricket when everyone else is apparently playing under Rugby Union rules. We shall get no support for our industry if we are the only people playing the game according to that particular set of rules. While I accept that we cannot go on bidding up indefinitely, the evidence is clear that nowhere are market forces operating, especially in regard to shipbuilding and ship repair. It is all very well to say that we are the only people who are behaving properly, but that will not prevent our industry from being severely undermined by our partners and competitors.
These statements have not been challenged by anyone, so far as I am aware. If they are not correct, I would be pleased if the Minister would say so. If they are accurate and authoritative, we would like to know the Government's view of the situation. Will they pursue this matter wihin the EEC and in OECD, or will we merely accept the situation and see our industry further undermined?

The Minister mentioned the Esso orders—a classic example of the kind of situation about which we are talking in terms of the lack of market forces operating in the industry at large.
We are talking about survival. We are talking about the ship repair industry. We welcome the Bill's provisions. We urge the Government, as we did in the previous debate, to show a little more vigour and determination in the discharge of their responsibilities to Briish industry.

Mr. Michael Marshall: A number of interesting points have again been raised in this debate on clause 2. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas) and to his ingenuity in managing to speak on the subject he raised while staying within the rules of order. The Committee recognises that the hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest in the tethered buoyant platform systems. We all recognise that he has a particular interest in Scott Lithgow and the connection between the two. It is only right and proper that he should ask to what extent this can be regarded as being within the ambit of the Bill.
Without going beyond the rules of order, it is difficult for me to give the hon. Gentleman a definitive answer. I shall try to avoid getting into a legalistic interpretation. However, the reference to "installation" which already appears in section 10(9) of the Industry Act 1972 is the relevant reference that the hon. Gentleman was seeking.
9.45 pm
Section 12(1) of the Industry Act 1972 already defines mobile offshore installations as follows:
any installation which is intended for underwater exploitation of mineral resources or exploration with a view to such exploitation and can move by water from place to place without major dismantling or modification, whether or not it has its own motive power;
Tethered buoyant or tension-legged platforms are among a variety of offshore installations, each of which can be considered on its merits for inclusion in the home credit scheme. Part of the problem is, as has been said, that TLPs are in an early stage of development and, therefore, we shall have to await further


development to see to what extent advantage can be taken of the provisions of the home credit scheme.
The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) reminded me of a point that I had not had the opportunity to pick up earlier. The points made by the hon. Members for South Shields (Dr. Clark), Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) and Newton (Mr. Evans) about the help that the shipbuilding industry training board might give to apprentices are important, and I undertake to write to them on the matter. It is something that is worthy of further examination.
I turn to the general ambit of clause 2. The home credit scheme, which was first established under the Shipbuilding Industry Act 1967, is aimed at enabling United Kingdom shipyards to compete for orders—

Dr. David Clark: I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging the point about apprentices. If I give him details, will he give me an assurance that he will, as a matter of urgency, look into the case of the 37 apprentices laid off by Peter Johnston's?

Mr. Marshall: I appreciate that the hon. Member is referring to a specific case, and if he cares to write to me I will look into the matter. He will appreciate, of course, that it may not fall within the orbit of my Department's responsibility. If it does not, I will make sure that it goes into the right hands.
I was explaining the purpose of the home credit scheme. The point of the scheme is to give United Kingdom shipyards the opportunity to compete for orders from United Kingdom owners on equivalent financial terms to those available from overseas yards which can offer advantageous credit arrangements under their countries' export credit guarantee schemes.
That leads to wider opportunities for conversions or alterations by United Kingdom owners which, for example, can involve jumboising or re-engining ships in the interests of greater fuel economy. The hon. Member for Whitehaven mentioned segregated ballast tanks. That is also an area where I would want to look at the precise way in which the market might develop. What perhaps was in the hon. Member's mind was that the Government support the February 1978

International Maritime Consultative Organisation conference on tanker safety and pollution prevention. We shall ratify the 1978 protocol to the international convention for the prevention of pollution from ships in line with the recommended target date. This means that the protocol will progressively require most oil tankers to be fitted with segregated ballast tanks. This, perhaps, is an area where we might well see some useful work, and I hope that the scheme will be of assistance.
I have referred to the jumboising or re-engining of ships and I also want to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Newton. The Government fully recognise that here we are speaking of business not just for the shipbuilding industry, the engine industry, or the ship repairing industry but for the whole of the engineering industry that supports the shipbuilding industry. So I recognise the importance of this scheme in that wider context. Therefore, in looking at re-engining we are, in the wider sense, looking for opportunities where greater fuel economy can offer worthwhile opportunities for shipbuilding, ship repair yards and other ancillary industries.
Such conversions or alterations have not hitherto been eligible for cover under the home credit scheme, although guaranteed credits have been available to foreign customers through the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
Ships and mobile offshore installations will both be eligible. For ships, the minimum size will be 5,000 gross registered tonnes, although we shall be able to go down to 1,000 gross registered tonnes to match evidence of competition from outside the EEC. The conversion must entail the radical alteration of the hull, the cargo plan or the propulsion system. Similar eligibility rules will apply to mobile offshore installations.
The normal terms of the cover offered will be a guaranteed loan of up to 80 per cent. of the contract price of the conversion, excluding any expenditure on the acquisition of the ship or structure to be converted, at an interest rate of 7½ per cent. for up to five years from delivery. These terms are in accordance with our EEC and OECD obligations, and therefore they fall squarely within the matters to which reference was made earlier tonight. As we judge them, they are within the present practice of our


main competitors. In very exceptional circumstances—this is an important point—such as very large orders of particular importance to the industry, we may be able to extend the credit period to a maximum of eight and a half years from delivery.
The cost of interest rate support depends on the volume of business, and we are back to the difficulty of the market projections. It will also depend on the prevailing market rates of interest. It cannot, therefore, in overall cost terms, be estimated with immediate accuracy. It is not, however, on present estimates of the market for conversions and current interest rates, expected to average more than £2 million per annum. This cost reflects the shorter term of credit proposed—five years—compared with that available for construction of ships—eight and a half years.
As for the present home credit scheme for new ships and structures, the Ship Mortgage Finance Company Ltd. will act as the Department's agent. Applications will be made to the company and it will advise the Department on the granting of guarantees and on the security which should be obtained, arrange for the necessary legal documentation to be prepared and monitor the performance of the owner's obligations to the Department during the guarantee period.
I thought it right to give the details, so as to put on the record the way in which the scheme will operate. We recognise that no commitments can be entered into by the Department before the enactment of the Bill. To ensure that the benefits of the scheme are available at the earliest opportunity, provisional offers may be made, subject to Royal Assent, if this is considered necessary to secure important orders which might otherwise be lost.
What we have before us tonight is, therefore, a useful addition to the way in which British Shipbuilders will have opportunities to look rather more widely than at present. It is yet another piece of evidence of the Government's earnest in these matters. I recommend the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Adam Butler: I do not want to detain the House for very long. We had quite a remarkable debate on clause 1, which was very much an action replay of the Second Reading debate. The Government have no complaints about that.
I remind the House that we have taken the Committee stage on the Floor of the House because of the urgency that we attach to the Bill and because we think that there will be benefits from its obtaining Royal Assent as soon as possible.
I think that I described the Bill on Second Reading as small but important. In itself, as we expected, it has proved to be uncontroversial. However, it has given occasion for considerable criticism—I think it was unjustified—from those who think that the Government are not doing enough to protect the industry. Therefore, I should like to make it clear again that the Government wish to see a viable and competitive shipbuilding industry in the United Kingdom.
Together with the other shipbuilding nations, we recognise that in the present state of the market such an objective cannot be achieved without a substantial measure of Government support. The Bill gives effect to part of the policy that I announced in July in response to British Shipbuilders' corporate plan and is an indication of our determination.
British Shipbuilders, in drawing up and presenting that plan, advised us that an industry of the size obtaining at that time could not be sustained, and the previous Administration admitted that contraction was inevitable.
I hope that this will be my only contentious remark, but it is totally unrealistic and financially imprudent to call for the unlimited provision of public funds. The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) said that there should be no upper limit for the intervention fund, which implies that he is prepared to find 100 per cent. of the cost of any ship.

Dr. John Cunningham: The Minister was being his usual careful self until


making that point. I said that I believed that British Shipbuilders had expressed the view that there should be no upper limit. I did not say that it was my view.

Mr. Butler: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is not inciting others to hold that view. I was misled into believing that he was giving support to the view put forward by British Shipbuilders. Even if he did not specifically suggest that, the weight of his arguments as official Opposition spokesman and those of other hon. Gentlemen have been once again to spend more and more money.
The hon. Gentleman also accused us of lack of vigour. When the corporate plan was put before the Labour Government in the late autumn of 1978, they refused to face the issue. They displayed no vigour. They refused to accept or reject British Shipbuilders' advice and finally, just before the election, said that they would proceed on a step-by-step basis.
I repeat that when we came to office the intervention fund had lapsed, which made it difficult for British Shipbuilders to obtain orders. Even the provision that the previous Government made for intervention fund assistance before it lapsed was much under-utilised. The annual provision of £85 million was much vaunted, but in practice only £12½ million was spent. The unions have been more realistic than the Labour Party in accepting a contraction in British Shipbuilders' preferred strategy.
As hon. Members pointed out, there are signs that the market is picking up, but straws in the wind are not firm orders, and as yet there are no solid grounds for optimism. With worldwide over-capacity, we remain of the view that British Shipbuilders will find it difficult to reach its target. Orders remain the key, and in order to compete British Shipbuilders will need to make determined and continuing efforts through improved productivity, design and marketing. We all want to see jobs preserved, and the only way to do that on a sure and long-term basis is for the industry to be competitive.
The Government have taken decisive action to support British Shipbuilders in its strategy. Substantial sums of public money have been made available and we have negotiated an intervention fund until the end of the EEC fourth directive and its management is largely in our hands.

We have set financial targets for British Shipbuilders and ended the period of uncertainty for the industry about the support that it can expect from the Government. The industry knows the terms on which it must meet the challenge of a tough and competitive environment.
I believe that there is an almost unprecedented spirit of co-operation within the industry at present. There is mutual understanding of the roles and responsibilities of Government, management and unions. This gives real grounds for optimism.

It being Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Shipbuilding Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed until any hour.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Butler: There is general recognition that survival can come only through hard decisions taken and acted upon, and that the future ultimately rests in the hands of those whose future it is—namely, the management and workers of British Shipbuilders. For them the challenge is tough. It is bound to be, given the excess of world capacity in shipbuilding. But it is a challenge they will do their best to meet. As for the Government, we pledge that within the framework of the support we have announced, we will do all we can to help. Therefore, I ask the House to give the Bill its Third Reading.

Mr. John Evans: I wish to intervene briefly in response to one or two comments made by the Minister of State. I welcome his total commitment to the maintenance of the British shipbuilding industry. I am sure that this will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and all sections of the industry. I hope that he will understand why we raised these issues in the first place. It appears that what the Government are saying now in relation to the shipbuilding industry is somewhat at variance with what they said during the election campaign. I welcome their conversion and their desire to maintain the industry.
The Minister was a little unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven


(Dr. Cunningham), who referred to lack of vigour. My hon. Friend asked the Government to show increased vigour in their dealings with the EEC. There are many serious problems about world shipping and therefore it is essential that the Government should be vigorous in relation to scrap-and-build and the many other problems that face the industry.
One problem is that of unfair competition from Eastern European countries and other countries in the Western world which are diminishing British fleets. In doing this they are diminishing the work that is available in British yards.
The Minister referred to the necessity to ensure that the industry is competitive. We all accept that. But it is not just a question of the British worker working harder and making the industry more competitive. There is the question of the worldwide practices adopted by countries on both sides of the Iron Curtain which are detrimental to the British industry. We urge the Government to examine these practices with vigour and to ensure that the British worker is placed on a fair competitive basis with workers of other countries. At present, no matter how hard the British worker works, he cannot compete with such practices.
Every country in the world regards the building of ships and the provision of a merchant fleet almost as a matter of national conscience and concern. I ask

the Minister to take on board that, when he talks about the growing spirit of co-operation between unions and management, which we on the Labour Benches greatly welcome, it is also a question of there being a third party involved in the deliberations and negotiations—his Government. It is essential that they be the third party at the table in all the talks to ensure that Britain retains a viable industry.
The Bill provides modest assistance to the industry. I made the point in Committee that we needed to know whether the Government's commitment to the industry was for two years or even longer. I do not believe, and I suspect that the Government do not believe, that worldwide trade will recover from the doldrums over a two-year period. I hope that the commitment that the Government have shown tonight in the Bill will be for longer than two years.
With that, I welcome this modest Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Ordered,
That during the proceedings on the matter of the Economy of Wales, the Welsh Grand Committee have leave to sit twice on the first day on which they shall meet; and that not-withstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 64 (Meetings of standing committees), the second such sitting shall not commence before Four o'clock nor continue for more than two hours.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

DOGS

Mr. Tony Marlow: I feel rather like the number three batsman after the opening partnership has scored 200 runs: it was jolly good, but I have been waiting a hell of a long time.
Since this debate was announced. I have been the butt of a certain amount of humour from some of my colleagues. Anyone who again says to me "Mind your step" will cease to be my hon. Friend.
The control and licensing of dogs are very serious matters. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment knows, there is nothing quite so powerful as an idea whose time has come. This is the time when we must seriously consider introducing changes. Why now? The first reason is that the number of dogs in this country has increased. It is now 5½ million, and half of them are probably not licensed. Secondly, we have a great deal of new knowledge about the problems and the diseases caused by dogs. Thirdly, there is a tide of public opinion, which is about to become a surge.
As we all know, dogs are man's best friend. They are a part of life, a part of the family. For many people they are very important companions. But, unfortunately, there is a small but growing minority of dogs that cause a great deal of trouble and disruption.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) and I have discussed with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the British Veterinary Association the proposals that I shall make tonight. I am happy to say that our views are almost identical. I think that they agree with my proposals. What we are putting forward is in the interests not only of the public but of dogs.
I said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this was a serious debate, and it is. I should like you to think for a moment of one of the most attractive things known to man—a small child of two years, with fair hair and blue eyes, learning to walk and

to talk, romping in a play area in a park. Twenty years ago one such child was doing just that and picked up a worm from the ground which got into his system and eventually found its way to the back of his eye. All that the child knew was that things were getting a bit fuzzy, a bit blurred. A child of two years could not articulate, could not say what was wrong. He did not know that it was not happening to other people, did not know that there was anything strange about it, did not know how to complain.
Eventually, at the age of four years, the child was taken to see a doctor and then to another doctor. The doctors looked at the back of his eye and saw a growth there. They thought that perhaps it was malignant, so they enucleated it, to use the trade term. They struck it out, pulled it from the child's body to examine it, and when they did so they discovered that the child had been affected by the worm toxocara canis.
Since that day a great deal of research has been carried out. The research continues. We now have real knowledge of the problem. One in four of soil samples taken from parks contains the worm. When the worm is in the ground it can stay alive for four years. The disease can attack the lungs. It is estimated that about 30,000 people in the country suffer from asthma possibly as a result of the worm. It can attack the brain. It is estimated that between 12,000 and 15,000 people suffer from epilepsy as a result of the worm. The case which I have mentioned illustrates the fact that it also attacks the eye. It is estimated that—we know 50 cases, we know100—perhaps 200 people a year can have a severely damaged eye as a result of this menace. If one-tenth of such problems were caused by nuclear-energy, the House would be besieged to such an extent that for a month we should not be able to get in or out.
Before I make some brief proposals, I have a few other facts and opinions to put forward. About 4,000 sheep per year are destroyed as a result of the disease. I said that we are also concerned for dogs. Dogs are often ill-advisedly given away because they are not properly looked after, and, regrettably, 300,000 dogs a year are destroyed because of the disease. The National Farmers' Union, when it heard that this debate was coming, wrote


to me and asked me to mention the very real problems of its members from livestock worrying. My local authority says that it is the consensus of both political groups on the parks committee that dogs should be banned from children's play areas and rugby and soccer pitches. However, at this stage, they are powerless to do anything about the matter.
The World Health Organisation says that dogs should be excluded from children's play areas. One of many constituents who have written to me said that there is a toddlers' play area in her area which is safe from traffic but a "lovely loo for animals". The Association of District Councils has written to say that its member authorities are concerned about the matter and have pressed the Government to introduce legislation on the basis of the report of the working party on dogs, which was published three years ago. They would particularly like power to be removed from the police to local authorities and they would like to see an increase in the licence fees. They have been concerned at the inflexibility of the Home Office in confirming byelaws.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North will refer to other matters, but in the meantime I should like to make a few brief proposals. First, in view of the menace of toxocara canis, the full reality of which is only just coming home to the general public. I should like it to be made a notifiable disease. Secondly, when I write questions on the subject I find that they are shuffled among three or four Departments. Surely one Department can take on the responsibility for dogs. Thirdly, the police are already over-burdened but they have the responsibility for dealing with stray dogs. The local authorities are willing, keen and able to take on the responsibility. Let us transfer it. Fourthly, there should be an increase in the licence fee. It is now the same as it was 101 years ago.
I suggest that before a dog is licensed a certificate must be produced to show that it has been adequately wormed, because in that way we can deal with the menace. That would mean, perhaps, that many people would have to take their dogs to the vet to get a certificate, but once a year the dog could have an annual check-up. This would be of great benefit not only to society but to dogs.
Fifthly, the possibility of having a differential licence should be investigated. I suggest that unspeyed bitches should carry a larger licence fee than speyed bitches and dogs. Sixthly, we need to adopt a different attitude to byelaws. Local authorities have been queueing up to get byelaws passed, but since the controversy at Burnley the Home Office has been loth to confirm them. Please let us have a change in that attitude.
We face a serious problem which will not go away. Public opinion is building up. Day by day, I and other hon. Members get more correspondence on the subject. It is not an insignificant problem. The lower figure of 50 people a year losing the sight of one eye may not seem much to some people, but to a person who loses the sight of an eye it seems a great deal.
I was addressing a small meeting earlier today at which I discussed this issue—this shows that it is a present and real threat, something that is actually happening—someone came up to me and said "It is strange you should mention that. My father lost an eye through this cause 20 years ago". We shall be irresponsible to the humans and the dogs of this country if we do not act, and act quickly.

Mr. Clive Soley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) for giving me the opportunity to speak, to my constitutent Mr. Athans, who has done a great deal to bring the problem to my attention, and to Professor Woodruff of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who has done much of the research work on the subject.
I stress that this is not a move against pets. The hon. Member for Northampton, North and I want people to have pets, but there is no such thing as an irresponsible animal and there are, alas, some irresponsible owners. The views put forward in the debate have the support of the RSPCA and other animal welfare groups.
Toxocara canis exists in dogs and cats. It seems that dogs are the major problem, presumably because the areas that they frequent are also frequented by children. It is estimated that there are 840,000 infected faeces a day in England and Wales—276 million a year. At one level, that


may seem a humorous figure, but at another level it is a serious one.
The disease is not notifiable, and one of my first requests is that it should be made a notifiable disease. At the moment we do not know the figures. Sample estimates suggested one case in 1974, two cases in 1975, five cases in 1977 and 10 cases in 1978. On a simple, and not necessarily accurate, statistical measure, the disease is on the increase.
Control is important, not only for public health, but for a more balanced and healthier animal population. Dogs can be a nuisance in a number of ways: by incessant barking, particularly at night, by straying into the road and causing accidents—there are an estimated 20,000 accidents a year caused by that and in 1977 13 people were identified as having been killed in such accidents—by attacking and threatening people, including children, and, as hon. Members who have served on local authorities will know, by fouling pavements.
There is an additional area to which we need to turn our minds. Rabies is a horrific disease that we do not yet have in this country, but there is a constant threat of its being imported, and I suggest that if we have adequate controls it will be marginally easier to control an outbreak of rabies. It would be only marginally easier, but any assistance is particularly helpful in that horrific disease which cannot easily be prevented.
We should also consider the appointment of dog wardens, as recommended by the 1976 report of the working party on dogs. The idea is supported by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Association of District Councils and many animal welfare groups. Such wardens would have an educational role with the owners of dogs and, to some extent, a welfare role in looking after stray dogs.
It is estimated in my constituency that there is a major problem of a surplus of dogs, many of which are strays. Recently there was a complaint from a school that the fouling of a council football pitch by dogs was resulting in children being fouled by dog faeces.
I should like the Minister to consider the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton, North that one Department—preferably the Department of the

Environment—should assume responsibility for this matter. There are too many areas of overlap. The dog licence scheme needs to be looked at because the time for a review is long overdue. However, we do not want to price out of the market people who, because they live in an isolated area or are elderly, need pets.
We need to change the park byelaws and how they are made. It took Hammersmith two years to get agreement on exercise areas, and it cost between £16,000 and £20,000 to fence off the relevant areas. Responsibility for strays should be transferred from the police to the local authority, and dogs should have to carry some identification of their owners.
There is a host of other possibilities, but I simply suggest now that the 1976 report indicates the way forward. I strongly urge the Minister responsible to look into this matter and to pursue what is becoming an increasing health problem which affects both the community and anyone who is in any way concerned about the health and welfare of his pet.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Marcus Fox): I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to the debate, and I say that for a number of reasons. One is that it must be the first time in history that a fox has replied to a debate on dogs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has raised a matter which touches many people deeply. I am left in no doubt about the national feeling that exists on the matter, and anyone who cares to examine the volume of correspondence that I receive on the subject would arrive at the same conclusion. We all know that the British are thought of as a nation of dog lovers, but even people who love dogs can be justifiably angered by the behaviour of irresponsible dog owners, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) has said. Many people are indeed frankly hostile to dogs, though it would be more logical if they were hostile to irresponsible owners.
The present law on dogs is complex. This reflects the long history of concern about dogs, and also the fact that dogs have to be considered from several points of view: amenity, health, livestock worrying and so forth. Before the Government


can come to conclusions on the suggestions and recommendations made in the working party's report, several of my right hon. and hon. Friends will have to have an opportunity to consider the issues and their implications for local authorities' resources. This debate has helped to underline and clarify several of them and for this I am duly grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to draw attention to the fact that the report has been in existence for three years. The Government, however, have had only six months in office.
To reach conclusions on what action would be desirable is one thing; to be able to conclude that a desired course of action can actually be implemented is another, especially at a time of severe constraints on public expenditure and on parliamentary time. I remind the House that my noble Friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton has already said in another Place that there was little prospect for legislation in the present Session to implement any of the working party's proposals.

Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Hemel Hempstead): My hon. Friend is already beginning to give a chapter of reasons as to why the Government should do nothing about this problem. It should be well understood that there is a natural reluctance among neighbours to report those who allow their dogs to foul places where it ought not to happen. Does it require great Government expenditure and great Government thought to introduce legislation or measures which would stop people allowing their dogs to foul at least children's playgrounds and play areas?

Mr. Fox: If my hon. Friend will be patient, I shall deal with that point. Perhaps the minute that he has taken away will prevent me from doing so, but I shall do my best.
My noble Friend in another place has explained that such legislation is unthinkable in this Session. I repeat that there are many issues before the House, and there is no way in which we can give a commitment to deal with this matter. I shall certainly deal with a number of points that hon. Members brought before me for my attention.
The working party went into a great many questions. Its main proposals for

fresh legislation were in the areas of the control of stray dogs, with which my hon. Friend is very concerned, and indeed dog licensing. It is noteworthy that it regarded even licensing as a matter subordinate to its main concern for improving dog control. On the proposal that the licence fee should be £5 it remarked:
The primary need … is to raise enough money to meet the costs of any effective Dog Warden Scheme.
This emphasis reflected its belief that the problem of strays is not only a predominant cause for concern but is also a major element in almost all aspects of the dog problem.
As my hon. Friend said, and indeed on the basis of police records, the estimate is that 200,000 dogs a year are taken to police stations as strays. But those recorded estimates have been put much higher. One million out of a total estimated population of 5 million to 6 million dogs are strays, as far as we can ascertain.
There are clearly a large number of dog owners who cannot or will not control their pets properly. The total number of dogs is probably greater now than ever before.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Am I not right in thinking that it would be perfectly possible for the Government to increase the dog licence fee without the necessity for fresh legislation?

Mr. Fox: My hon. Friend is not correct. It would need legislation.
I was talking about dogs and irresponsible owners. We know that many families nowadays are working and that their children are at school. Dogs are turned out for the whole day. It does not need much imagination to visualise what happens during the day. Perhaps our rising standards of amenity and public hygiene have something to do with the deeper concern on these matters.
First, I shall deal with the question of dog wardens. The working party considered this matter. The suggestion is that we should provide money to offset the expenditure by increasing the dog licence fee. Some people are opposed to that. They do not understand why the revenue should be raised in this way and think that it should come out of the general rate. That policy is unacceptable to the Government at present.
The working party's single most important proposal was for local authority dog wardens. It envisaged that the appointment of such wardens would be discretionary but also favoured a general duty on local authorities towards dog control. We in the Government cannot contemplate a new mandatory local authority function at a time when local authorities are having to make real and sustained reductions in the level of their expenditure. I am sure that my hon. Friends agree. However, it is important to be clear that local authorities already have powers to control dogs in a number of important ways. They may make bye-laws in respect of the control of dogs in parks and similar public open spaces, to which my hon. Friend turned his mind. They may prohibit the fouling of footpaths and exclude dogs from certain enclosed parts of parks where they might cause a particular nuisance. I remind my hon. Friend that it is not always easy to do that. We know about the case of the local authority in Burnley and the difficulties that it encountered. The Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland is the confirming authority for such byelaws. I cannot say to my hon. Friend that there is any hope of bringing the control of dogs within one Government Department. My hon. Friends must satisfy themselves that the proposed byelaws strike a fair balance between the need to protect amenity and the reasonable interests of the large numbers of people who wish to exercise their dogs. However, the powers are there for the local authorities—and they are there to be used.
Local authorities can also make orders designating roads in their area on which it is an offence to allow a dog without a lead. Above all, we should remember that in England and Wales dog wardens can be, and indeed in many cases are, appointed by local authorities under general powers. Those wardens have no official status and rely on the co-operation of the police in booking in stray dogs under the provisions of the Dogs Act 1906. Nevertheless, 80 councils in England and Wales have voluntarily set up dog warden schemes.

Mr. Soley: The Minister may have been in danger of giving false information, although I am sure it was well- 
intentioned.I understood him to say in response to an earlier point that the licence fee could not be increased without new legislation. Appendix A of the working party report says:
Recommendations which could be implemented under existing legislation:
1. The annual licence fee should be increased (to £5).
That, of course, would pay for dog wardens.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North Mr. Soley and I, in talking about increased dog licence fees, would wish to see protection for old-age pensioners, the blind and other people of misfortune.

Mr. Fox: It is impossible to go into detail but the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North is right in saying that it would not need new legislation to increase dog licences. However, I am sure that all hon. Members understand that the issue would have to be brought before the House for discussion. Many people would take exception to licences being increased if those increases applied to retired people.
I accept that it is ridiculous that the cost of the licence has remained unchanged since the nineteenth century. The Labour Government said that dog warden schems would have to pay for themselves, that is, out of licence revenues This was a decision of the Department of the Environment. The local authority associations have been similarly insistent that dog wardens should not be a burden on the rates, but there are contrary opinions.
The working party did a lot of work on the fouling of and access by dogs to public open spaces, and heard a great deal of evidence. However, it recommended no change in the present law. The question of byelaws governing the access of dogs to public open spaces is one on which few generalisations can safely be made. Certainly the exercise of detailed control requires every case to be looked at on its merits, in the light of the local situation.
The working party said that it had received more letters of complaint, and expression of concern, about fouling than about any other subject. It came to the conclusion, however, that this is a problem which cannot easily be solved by


law and did not subscribe to the view that central legislation would succeed where byelaws have proved difficult to enforce. On the contrary, it recommended continued use by local authorities of their existing powers to make byelaws. In particulars, it encouraged the use of bye-laws in relation to children's play areas and put some faith in educating owners, as a way of producing a change of attitude towards fouling by their pets.
In reaching its conclusions, the working party had the benefit of medical advice about the extent of the risks of infection transmissible through dog dirt, including the condition associated with the worm toxocara canis. The working party concluded that the riks of serious infection was small. Nevertheless, the Government are well aware that there is continued concern about toxocariasis. My hon. Friend asked whether we would consider making the disease notifiable. I will consider that point. There are no firm figures for the number of people affected by it. Estimates have been bandied about and an article I read recently suggested that 200 people a year are blinded, or partially blinded, by the disease. On the other hand, Professor Woodruff of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine quotes around 50 cases a year.
We are not aware of any evidence for the figure quoted in the article in regard to asthma and epilepsy. They may be based on the fact that, whereas 2 per 
cent.of otherwise healthy people give positive results when tested for toxocara, those suffering from certain eye, lung and liver disease give much higher positive results. From this it sems to have been deduced that toxocara is responsible for the suffering of 30,000 asthma victims and 15,000 epileptics. The Government's medical advisers have cast strong doubts on the accuracy of these claims, which seem to be supported by no authoritative published evidence.
I can assure my hon. Friend, however, that we will carefully consider all the points that he has made since we know that the question of dogs is of deep concern to many people. The hon. Gentleman raised the question of rabies. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who is keeping a very careful eye on that issue.
In conclusion, I have to say that while the Government have no intention of neglecting the question of dogs, we must consider this matter in the context of the current constraints on public expenditure and manpower. However, contrary to what my hon. Friend has asked, I hold out no hope that this matter will be dealt with in the near future. That does not mean that we will not give it the highest priority when the time comes.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Eleven o'clock.